1970 Parallel Time....not so bad after all.

[IluvBarnabas]

I've just about trashed the 1970 Parallel Time story since I first join the forum, but I've been rewatching certain episodes lately....like [spoiler] Angelique coming back to life from Alexis' warm touch, killing her and taking her place, and Angelique dealing with Dameon Edwards' ghost, just to name a couple....I've found myself actually enjoying it. [/spoiler]

I still find Quentin and Maggie annoying, but other characters, such as Roger's even more snobbish (and psychotic) attitude, Julia as a maid devoted to Angelique, Will and Carolyn (I never had a problem with them, just wish we could have seen moe of them) are fascinating to watch.

I find myself changing...stories I didn't care for before, watching them again, I can find something to enjoy. I always said the show didn't start to get good until Barnabas came, but watching the pre-Barnabas episodes again recently, I realize I sold them short, there is a LOT of good stories and great acting before the arrival of Barnabas. Not to mention actors like Joan Bennett, Louis Edmonds and Alexandra Moltke had better material to work with and more often used than not.

Has it ever happened to any of you before? Did stories that you used to not like or didn't care for, watching it again you change your prespective on them?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I'm glad to see you're changing your mind - especially about 1970PT, which is one of my favorite DS storylines.

As for your main question, I can't say that my opinions have ever switched from dislike to like or vice versa - but as an adult I've definitely come to appreciate storylines on a deeper level. Some aspects of DS just went completely over my head as a kid. However, I have come to appreciate actors that I didn't necessarily pay much attention to originally. For example, I now see Nancy Barrett and Thayer David for the extraordinarily gifted actors that they are. It wasn't that I didn't like them originally - it's just that they didn't register all that much on my kid's radar - but that was my failing, obviously not theirs. And conversely, now I find myself faulting much more of what RD does on the show than I ever did as a kid. But then I strongly suspect that's most probably because as a adult I have a deeper appreciation for the other actors' techniques, so his shortcomings stand out all the more to me now.

[barnabasjr]

I recently viewed 1840 and 1841 PT for the first time in years and found much to appreciate that I hadn't before. I'd forgotten that James Storm was as good as he was as Gerard and I enjoyed just about every aspect of 1841 whereas previously I'd simply dismissed it totally, thinking "Let's get back to the good stuff!" This time around I was able to truly enjoy yet another different storyline with my favorite actors and I found a renewed appreciation for Bramwell and Catherine, and even Morgan. As I write this, I find myself wondering, though, was it ever revealed [spoiler]if it was Melanie or Gabriel who killed Stella?[/spoiler]

[Gothick]

It's just such a different experience watching the show on home video or DVD as opposed to viewing it, either back in the day of you are of "the Ancient Blood" (that phrase never ceases to amuse me), or in local UHF syndication in the Seventies, or on PBS in the 80s, or on Sci Fi in the 90s.

I'm strongly in favor of fans re-evaluating stories that have been labelled as failures ever since the 1960s because the ratings dropped or fans complained or whatever.

I recall during the original b'cast being intrigued by Parallel Time because its premise really set it apart from anything the series had done before.  Sy Tomashoff did a fabulous job making the sets look different, I think a couple of new cues were introduced by Bob Cobert, and Liz was even seen briefly wearing dowdy clothing!

I did not get to see any of Parallel Time again until I was in my mid-30s and the VHS tapes had been released.  But I had read about it in KLS' book, My Scrapbook Memories of DS, and was very excited by what she said about it in there.

And to Barnabas Jr, [spoiler]I always thought it was Quentin who killed Stella--but I can't remember exactly which bits of dialogue made me think that.  One reason may have been that the murder mystery as left hanging because David Selby's hospitalization in March of '71 meant that Quentin dropped out of sight for the last couple of weeks of the show.[/spoiler]

G.

[Brandon Collins]

I had previously written off the pre-Barn episodes, but upon watching them on the DVDs, I find that I can appreciate them much more for what they are--intriguing, atmospheric, and suspenseful.

[MagnusTrask]

of "the Ancient Blood"

Oooh, is that what I am?   I must say in all humility that this makes me much cooler than I thought I was.    I'm putting that on my business card.    (I watched from 1967 on.)

My respect for a storyline seems to depend on whether I know the films being stolen from.    I realize my perspective must be warped, because it was all lifted from somewhere.   I guess what I care about most is not the plot necessarily, but whether intelligence and perspective is put into the dialogue.    There are long stretches of DS where it's all plot, all "things happening", and bare-bones dialogue, which only serves the minimal function of moving plot along.    That brings 1840 down to Earth, when there's more than enough there for it to soar.

Then again, there are stories like 1795, where the writers are invested and immersed in it all, and actually are thinking about the insides of these characters, and what their inner worlds are like.     At unexpected times, too, during other bare-bones-plot stretches, DS will "remember" what it can be, and will suddenly "tower" again.    It becomes more than TV, more than the medium, and leaps out at you... right now I'm thinking of Ang re-appearing in 1897, and the bleak,surreal, poetic feel of things in 1795, after Barnabas has risen.

[Breebell]

I'm of the ancient blood (I am so stealing that).  Dark Shadows started when I was in first grade, but I didn't get serious about it till third grade.

I've haven't seen it on t.v. since, and can barely remember it, so I am catching up with the DVD's now.


I hope someday I can re-watch the Leviathan storyline with new appreciation, because right now I'm hating on it.

[MagnusTrask]

welcome breebell......

[Breebell]

Thank you, Magnus Trask.
I'm very pleased to be here.

I'm still finding my way around, so if I do anything stupid, and I probably will...be gentle.   

[Mysterious Benefactor]

We're always gentle when Newbies first start to post.    And welcome to the forum! 

[IluvBarnabas]

Welcome, Breebell! 

[JS]

I'm glad that I wasn't alone in the Leviathan era.I didn't much care for it but I do look forward to it again to see if my opinion has changed. My tastes have changed a lot since I was a kid. I hated Mission Impossible as a kid but now I think that it was the coolest show ever. So bring on the Leviathans even though I have a long way to go I'm only on the first collection I have the whole series to look forward too.

[Doug]

To me the Leviathan saga is a lot better than the 1970 PT. That Cyrus Longworth character was
annoying to me. But I did felt sorry for Maggie.

[Midnite]

I'm only on the first collection I have the whole series to look forward too.

Lucky you!

[michael c]

because they are the last storylines set in the "present" i always think of leviathan,1970PT and the 'summer of 1970' as something of a "triptych" with SO1970 being the weakest link.

but because i prefer in general the parts of the show set in the present i have quite a fondness for leviathan and parallel-time despite their many weaknesses.they're both deeply flawed but created an original atmosphere that i found to be quite captivating.