DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '02 II => Topic started by: yendor on October 27, 2002, 03:24:52 AM
-
Like many of you, I have always been bugged by time paradox storylines--so I won't even bother discussing "Terminator" and "Back to the Future" (two films that defy Time's logic)! But I must address Dark Shadows own forays into Time travel, most specifically 1795 and 1897.
Ok, first 1795. Victoria Winters participates in a seance and finds herself thrust into the not too distant past...1795 Collinsport, Maine, to be exact. Her own time period, 1967, supposedly is "suspended" in Time--or so we're led to believe by the opening narrative to every 1795 episode. Yet, how frozen is it? Certainly there's enough "time" for Roger, Liz, Carolyn, Julia, and Barnabas to react to the sudden presence of Phyllis Wick. Barnabas even says "what are YOU doing here?" as if he somehow recognizes her. So, are we to believe Time froze AFTER all this takes place?
And if Phyllis Wick was the original 1795 governess, originally hung as a witch, and all the events unfolded as they did with Vicky, why would Barnabas (in 1967) have such a nasty reaction to Phyllis' appearance? Throughout his experience with the 1795 Vicky, he's been nothing but kindly and courteous. His reaction to Phyllis, however, is anything but.
And if Victoria returns to 1967 (actually, 1968 ) at the exact moment in Time when she disappeared, Phyllis Wick should also return to 1795 at the exact moment of her disappearance. That means SHE'D stumble to the Old House in a daze from the carriage accident, not Victoria. And none of Victoria's experiences in 1795 would've happened. Right?
Wait, there's more! When Victoria returns to 1967/68, allegedly NO time has passed. She virtually disappeared and appeared in the blink of an eye, right? Well, we know that didn't really happen because Barnabas and the others had time to react to Phyllis (I'm getting confused--as you?). Then, after Victoria returns, there's absolutely NO mention of Sarah Collins again (though she was the whole reason behind the seance), Burke Devlin is NEVER mentioned (though Vicky was completely distraught over his death); Julia's incriminating red diary is conveniently forgotten, and Eagle Hill Cemetery is suddenly miles and miles away from Collinwood! Am I crazy, or have people been walking to it since then?
My theory: when Vicky returned to the "present," it was an alternate present...and not the one she left. How else could any of it be explained?
Now, for 1897! Barnabas goes back to the past to save David...and completely changes the timeline. If that were the case, wouldn't Janet Findley still be living when he returned to 1969? And how about old Ezra? He'd be living, too, correct?
Let's hear your take on all this!
Rod
-
Then, after Victoria returns, there's absolutely NO mention of Sarah Collins again (though she was the whole reason behind the seance), Burke Devlin is NEVER mentioned (though Vicky was completely distraught over his death); Julia's incriminating red diary is conveniently forgotten, and Eagle Hill Cemetery is suddenly miles and miles away from Collinwood! Am I crazy, or have people been walking to it since then?
I think the writers hoped us dumb little kids would forget all this stuff so Barnabas and Julia could turn into good guys. The new"dumb" Vicki would harp on Jeff/Peter. Basically, we are just supposed to forget what we learned no matter what plot they make-up whether it jibes with what they wrote before. These inconsistencies go on throughout the series.[spin]
-
Do I take it that "12 Monkeys" is not one of your favorites either? Love that movie. There is no way that anyone could ever smooth out all the time wrinkles in the DS fabric, but let me get a few.
Barney reacted vehemently to Phyliss Wicke because he recognized her and he was afraid. Seeing someone you knew almost 200 years ago COULD do that to you! Didn't further his purpose because she could have been told he was a descendant of the original Barney. It was just the same reaction that Vicky had when she thought she recognized someone. Only in her case it was over, and over, and....
I personally don't think time travel has to adhere to strict rules. Vicky could have been returned to five minutes after she left or a week. Time being relative, just because she was gone __ # of weeks, doesn't mean that she would have to be returned __# of weeks later. Same with Phyliss, she could have been returned at time she left, or later as she was. If there are definate rules about this, I do so hope someone will set me straight. I would HATE to be poorly mannered in such matters. Given Einstein's theory of time moving differently for the guy on the rocket ship and him coming back a few years older to an ancient wife, I don't think this is all as ludicrous as it sounds. Or as it really is, I don't know.
For the change in story line, I think the writers used a little diversion tactic to get out of a sticky wicket. There was ONE reference to Carolyn no longer wanting to kill Julia and then no reference was ever made to Carolyn knowing Barney's secret again. Live and let non-live, I guess was her motto. OK, for that part of your questioning, the answer is they cheated. Though for Vicky, while she did RETURN to the same moment or shortly thereafter, she herself had been gone long enough to forget Burke and fall in love with someone else.
I would think that Janet Findley IS alive and never was called to Collinwood. My guess is that Ezra wasn't long for this world, either way. Later, when Quentin eventually shows up in Collinwood, noone gasps and runs away in mortal fear. So I think his ghost had ceased to be.
As for Eagle Hill Cemetary, it must be right next to Wyndcliffe! Either hours away or just a short walk, have your pick. I don't think the time travel created THAT inconstancy.
-
Prior to 1795, the writers had written Barnabas into a corner, he was evil for all of the 1967 storyline and Julia helping him kill Dr. Woodard didn't make her look good either. The other members of the cast were given lesss screen time and made extremely ignotant of all the events around them.
1795 was 5 months long and enough time for viewers in those days to forget what happened before. Ther were no VCRs, Soap Opera Digest, internet, etc.
I am sure DS wasn't the only soap that changed plots and histories back then. They still do it today.
-
You're right Joey they still do it today when an actor leaves then comes back etc.. the writers never remember what the fans do and fans can get quite mad. Now we have tapes and can check back but back when we were kids i don't suppose too many of us checked. We lived for the moment of DS and waited for each episode never really thinking back to the last storyline
sometimes it is quite funny to rewatch them as an adult
because there are so many mistakes! Time travel always makes my head spin anyway [spin] when i try
ti think it through!
jennifer
-
Now, for 1897! Barnabas goes back to the past to save David...and completely changes the timeline. If that were the case, wouldn't Janet Findley still be living when he returned to 1969? And how about old Ezra? He'd be living, too, correct?
Let's hear your take on all this!
Rod
You are absolutely right. If Barnabas had changed history, there never would've been a haunting of Collinwood in 1968/69. Okay, for now, let's forget the whole thing about you-can't-change-history (e.g., if you went back to April 14, 1912 and convinced Captain Smith to do what was needed to avoid the iceberg, thus the Titanic would never've sunk, she would still've sunk, because since she didn't, you wouldn't know to go back to 4/14/12 to prevent her from striking the iceberg, blah-blah-blah). Let's say that Barnabas
[spoiler]and Julia did change history and returned to their own time of 1969, discovering that no haunting ever took place, no one has memory of it since it never happened, but they remember the alternate time line because, through their time-travels, they are somehow "protected" from forgetting.
Now here comes another SPOILER.
The biggest paradox should've happened with the 1840/41 storyline because that is where history was REALLY changed. In the unchanged history, Gabriel (and Edith) becomes the master of Collinwood, and the lineage passes through him (Gabriel/Edith; unknown children; Edward/Lara, siblings; Jamison/unknown-wife, Norah; Elizabeth and Roger). BUT..........because Barnabas (and Julia and Eliot) change history, they change the lineage to pass through Quentin I and his son Tad, thus completely changing the progeny/descendents. When Barnabas, Julia and Eliot returned to 1971, they should've found a completely different family living there. By the way, if the series had continued, that would've made a fascinating storyline, somehow getting our three heroes to restore the original line.[/spoiler]
Gerard
-
A caveat for those who haven't seen the show from 1897 on - this posting is spoiler laden.
[spoiler]But didn't they show Quentin and Daphne going away together at the end of 1840? Who's to say that they ever returned? And Tad might have died young, so that Collinwood passed to Gabriel's kids. Or, perhaps Gabriel was the older of the two brothers, so his sons naturally inherited.
I too have often wondered about these time paradoxes. Of course the reality is that the writers just didn't figure anyone would ever know the difference, as others have pointed out.
But in thinking about it all now, I prefer to think that all that time travelling messed things up, creating all kinds of parallel times. The Collinwood that Barnabas, Julia & Stokes returned to after the 1840 storyline HAD to be a parallel of the original, since Liz obviously had no knowledge of the problems they'd gone back in time to fix (Gerard, etc.).
You have to wonder what the meddling around in the time continuum (sp?) did to the storylines that had come before. For example, did the 1840 shenanigans negate the Leviathan story somehow? Angelique was killed in 1840. How then does Sky Rumson come into the picture in 1969? And what does this do to the Dream Curse subplot? For that matter, what is Stokes even doing returning from 1840 at all? Or at the very least why does Liz know who he is? Stokes, if I remember correctly, was first brought onto the show as Cassandra/Angelique's teacher. If she had died in 1840, how the heck did he come to know the Collins family?
Which brings me to the myriad time paradoxes Angelique's existence poses. When B and co return to 1970 from 1840, they shouldn't mention Cassandra to Roger, he can't have married her if she was killed in 1840. And does this mean Sam Evans is alive upon their return to 1970? Cassandra killed him.
Remember that the 1840 Angelique knew nothing of any other times except 1692 and 1795. And I think that 1897 Angelique doesn't seem to know about 1968/69. The Angelique who shows up as Mrs. Sky Rumson during the Leviathan storyline seems to know about everything but 1840. And my namesake Cassandra didn't indicate she knew anything about 1840 or 1897. Maybe she just deliberately withheld this information from the other characters. ::)
Now if anyone had been able to transcend all this temporal mess, it was Angelique. But she seems to be as in the dark about all of this as Elizabeth, Roger or for that matter the lovable but eternally clueless Victoria Winters.[/spoiler]
Okay, this is all starting to make my head hurt. ???
-
I'll address the 1795 time travel first. This one is the easiest.
By going back in time and trading places w/Phyllis Wick, Victoria creates a parallel timeline. The time "split" occurs at the moment the carriage overturns.
In the original timeline, Phyllis Wick survived the carriage accident and went on to Collinwood, where historical events proceeded as "normal." Presumably, Phyllis Wick was framed as the witch, met Peter Bradford and was hanged.
In the parallel timeline Victoria creates, she takes the place of Phyllis Wick and proceeds to Collinwood. The Phyllis Wick of this parallel timeline switches places w/her and ends up at the seance in 1967, where Barnabas recognizes her from the original timeline.
After hanging, Victoria returns to the original timeline where she started. The idea that "time stood still" isn't literal; upon traveling into the past (or future) one could return to their point of origin regardless of how much time they spent in another century. (If you can travel thru time, you can 'land' at any given point in time.) The Phyllis Wick at the seance again switches places with Vicki and returns to the parallel timeline at the point where Vicki was hanged.
Victoria does not travel from 1796 PT to 1967 PT - otherwise, that Barnabas would remember her from 1795. He does not - he remembers Phyllis Wick, and tells Julia so. He realizes the implications of what Vicki may have learned by trading places w/Phyllis Wick.
What's important to realize is that it's the Angelique and Peter Bradford of the parallel timeline Victoria created who follow her to 1967 RT. The Angelique and Peter of the original timeline had no knowledge of Victoria Winters, just as Barnabas did not.
Here's where it gets even trickier. After Jeff/Peter draws Victoria back into the past again, she creates yet another parallel timeline. We do not know at what point in 1795/1796 she has returned - it could be she went all the way back to the beginning again (carriage overturns) and had to relive the experience all over again. She may have had the opportunity to make a few changes this time - hence the perceived "discrepencies" when Barnabas goes back in time to save her. Victoria recognizes Barnabas from the future instead of perceiving him to be the Barnabas of 1795; this indicates it is not the first parallel timeline he travels back to but the second. (Also, if Victoria had returned to the first parallel timeline she had created, she would find another Vicki there already!)
I have an excellent diagram of this to illustrate but no way to "post" it here. But despite our criticism of the writers they were obviously aware of the implications of parallel timelines created by time travel, hence the eventual 1970 PT story line.
-
I accept the idea that a "parallel time" stream was created by Vickie going back to 1795--and that would certainly explain why she apparently had no memory of Sarah Collins or Burke Devlin upon her return (for that matter, nobody else remembered them, either!). But I must disagree about 1967 time "freezing," since the writers made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, that time was "standing still" at Collinwood during the seance. In fact, they even show all the particulars sitting around the table, allegedly "frozen" (though we can see them breathing). So, if time did indeed "freeze" in 1967, and Victoria returned within a breath of when she disappeared, it would stand to reason that time should continue as it had been...but now incorporating whatever changes Vicky's foray into the past caused. One of these changes is the sudden reapparance of Peter Bradford/Jeff Clark, followed by Cassandra/Angelique. But there's no way Sarah Collins, Burke, and Julia's red diary should be alterered or change in any way. And what about poor dead Dave Woodard? He's another convenient memory that nobody remembers!
I think the REAL point behind 1795 was to show the origin of Barnabas, which the writers did very well. But when Vicky returned to 1967 (now 1968 ), a NEW writer had come on board...someone who took Dark Shadows down many a wacky, inexplicable road. Continuity went out the window, and plots began to be "cribbed" from other sources. His name: Sam Hall.
Rod
-
Okay, this is all starting to make my head hurt. ?!?
And just think if the writers had thought that all the time-travelling might've created alternate present-times, they could've come up with a myriad of new stories! The show might've possibly gone on, at least for several more seasons (who knows? - maybe still be on the air today, just like As the World Turns, et. al.).
Gerard
-
I accept the idea that a "parallel time" stream was created by Vickie going back to 1795--and that would certainly explain why she apparently had no memory of Sarah Collins or Burke Devlin upon her return (for that matter, nobody else remembered them, either!).
Nothing has changed upon Victoria's return to "real time" 1967. They may not mention Sarah or Burke, but it's not because they are now in a parallel time line. They are simply fickle and easily distracted by new situations. Vicki does not return to 1967 in the parallel timeline she created; she returns to 1967 in the original timeline. Remember, Barnabas does not remember her from 1795/6. He remembers Phyllis Wick.
But I must disagree about 1967 time "freezing," since the writers made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, that time was "standing still" at Collinwood during the seance. In fact, they even show all the particulars sitting around the table, allegedly "frozen" (though we can see them breathing). So, if time did indeed "freeze" in 1967, and Victoria returned within a breath of when she disappeared, it would stand to reason that time should continue as it had been...but now incorporating whatever changes Vicky's foray into the past caused.
No. Vicki did nothing to alter the original timeline, she created a parallel timeline which she left in 1796. What followed in the parallel timeline was a generation or more of citizens who recalled the strange day that the witch, Victoria (or Gloria, if you prefer) Winters was hanged on the gallows and when the hood was pulled off her head, a different woman was found there. No such legend exists in the original timeline, when Phyllis was governess and framed as the witch.
Time 'stood still' only for us, the viewers, and for Victoria Winters, who spent months in the past but returned to the present only moments after she'd vanished.
One of these changes is the sudden reapparance of Peter Bradford/Jeff Clark, followed by Cassandra/Angelique. But there's no way Sarah Collins, Burke, and Julia's red diary should be alterered or change in any way. And what about poor dead Dave Woodard? He's another convenient memory that nobody remembers!
Actually, Barnabas (with the help of Dr. Lang) reminds Julia of her part in murdering Woodard when she begins to phone the police about the Adam experiment. No one has lost any of their memories.
-
Now . . . to tackle the 1897 time travel dilemma. I have discussed this at great length with serious Sci Fi buffs who have a better head for such things than I do. (Understanding various theories of time travel would seem to require a strong grasp of mathematic formulas, which I have none.)
Those of you familiar with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine might already be familiar with the concept of non-linear time. As I understand it, Barnabas exists outside of linear time. He "jumps" from timeline to timeline rather than experiencing them in the ordinary, one day-after-the-next fashion the rest of us do. In other words, he goes from 1796, when he is chained in a coffin, to 1967, when he is freed by Willie Loomis. (This would also account for why he emerges from said coffin fresh as a daisy despite being chained up for almost 200 years with no blood to nourish him.)
Despite the most common perceptions, Barnabas actually was part of the original 1897 time line. However, he does not experience it between 1796 and 1967, but rather afterwards.
It's sort of like this. You and I experience the week thusly: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. However, Barnabas goes from Monday to Friday then back to Wednesday. We remember Barnabas being there on Wednesday when we get to Friday; he does not, since he has not yet experienced it.
In much the same way, Barnabas goes from 1968/9 to 1897 and lives for the first time what Judith, Quentin, Edward et. al already know about by this timeline's end.
Barnabas does not "alter" history by going back to 1897, after all. He is able to change events in the future, but only from the point at which he has already departed. When Julia travels back to 1897 to join him, she informs him that "David is now all right." Julia, however, has not lost her memory of David being possessed and stricken, nor has anyone else. They are only aware of his recovery. Nor is there any indication that the rest of the family has forgotten about Quentin's ghost haunting the house; they merely find it to be eventually gone and move back home.
If Barnabas prevents Quentin from dying in 1897 then how can his ghost haunt Collinwood in 1968? Much like Barnabas, Quentin exists outside linear time. Quentin haunts Collinwood only up until the time when Barnabas travels to the past. There is no original vs. revised history here; events proceed day by day until Barnabas has a chance to jump from 1968 to 1897. There's also the possibility that Beth, Jamison, or any number of other ghosts, simply projects Quentin's image in 1968 as a catalyst to draw Barnabas back to 1897 so history can proceed in the normal, linear fashion.
-
Well, that's certainly an interesting theory, Dr. Lang (non-linear time). It seems to work, at least for the 1897 storyline.
Can you explain to me Angelique's progression through time in this non-linear fashion? 'Cos I've tried, and am again finding the head hurting.
-
I enjoyed your theories, Dr. Lang...they're intriguing! But I must wonder--did Barnabas really "remind" Julia of Dr. Woodard's death? I recall him fumbling for the right words, finally blurting "Julia...Julia, remember someone!"
Rod
-
Thanks to Midnite I can now illustrate the principal of parallel time regarding Victoria Winter's trip to the past. Please refer to diagram 1.
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/Diagram 1.jpg)
Vicki jumps from point A to point B which causes a split in the original timeline. Vicki does not proceed to points C-E, otherwise she would find Phyllis Wick there, as in the original timeline; or else if she had switched places w/Phyllis Wick at point B and proceeded to points C-E, upon returning to point A she would find history changed, at least to the extent that Barnabas would now remember Vicki from 1795. (If this was the case, Barnabas would have recognized Vicki upon meeting her in 1967, and likely would not have allowed Vicki to participate in the seance in the first place, knowing what would happen.)
Instead, Vicki proceeds from point B to points F-H. She then switches places with Phyllis at point A again, and returns to point A. This is the "parallel time" Phyllis; the original Phyllis goes from point B to point E. Parallel time Phyllis goes from B to point A, then switches places with Vicki at point H.
Vicki does not go from point H to point I. We do not know how different Collinwood would be at point I; it may be as different as 1970 RT is from 1970 PT. What we do know is that between points H and I, some people in Collinsport remember the incident of Vicki hanging and turning into another woman once the hood is removed from her head. At the very least, the Barnabas at point I would remember Vicki from points F-H. Barnabas at point A only remembers Phyllis Wick from the original timeline.
It is important to note that it is parallel time Angelique and Peter from points F-H that follow Vicki back to point A. The Angelique and Peter of the original timeline have no knowledge of Victoria Winters.
When "Eve" is sent back in time she goes to the parallel timeline. The Peter Bradford she finds there knows Victoria Winters, as does the jailer.
After Vicki returns to 1967 RT and the spirit of Peter Bradford from point H draws her back in time, she creates yet another parallel timeline. Please refer to diagram 2.
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/Diagram 2.jpg)
We do not know at what point Vicki is returned to 1795/6 parallel time; does she return to point B and have to relive points F-H all over again? Or does she return somewhere between points F, G or H? However, at whatever point she returns, she splits this parallel timeline once more. Since she does not switch places with anyone, if she returned to point F or G she would find another Vicki already there. (Otherwise, she would have had to switch places with herself, hence when she disappears from her bedroom in 1968 she would be replaced with an earlier version of herself at a time when she was somewhere between points B and H, and had no knowledge of eventually returning to point A after the hanging.)
For the sake of the argument, Vicki returns somewhere between point F and point G and creates yet another timeline at this point. Barnabas travels back to point J to meet her. He does not go to the original parallel timeline, or else the Vicki there would perceive him to be Barnabas of 1795, rather than recognize him as Barnabas from 1968 and fully aware of her predicament.
This accounts for the "discrepencies" when Barnabas travels back to 1796 to save Vicki - i.e. the Countess DuPres finds out about Barnabas at a different time and in a different way. It's possible this time around Vicki behaved differently, perhaps withholding the future knowledge from the Collins family history book from Natalie and Josette, thus keeping them in the dark about Barnabas' fate.
When Barnabas travels back to 1796 from 1897, we do not know if he returns to the original timeline or the initial parallel timeline, but we know that it's either point E or point H rather than point K since Natalie is still alive.
Thanks again to Midnite for helping me get these diagrams posted!
-
Wow! Dr. Eric Lang, these diagrams are quite impressive! I can see how much time and thought you've put into them, and I thank you for sharing.
ProfStokes
-
Dr.Eric Lang Wrote:
Thanks to Midnite I can now illustrate the principal of parallel time regarding Victoria Winter's trip to the past. Please refer to diagram 1.
That was some write up Chris![thumb] Thanks for putting this all together so we can better understand what the heck is going on with these time changes.
At least I don't feel so clueless now and can appreciate the time traveling more easily now. I was beginning to feel as if the writers took us all for compete fools back then. At least this gives us some kind of closure as to what really happens & why.
-
Can you explain to me Angelique's progression through time in this non-linear fashion? 'Cos I've tried, and am again finding the head hurting.
This isn't too tricky if you have the diagrams to refer to.
Angelique from the parallel timeline (points B-H) is strangled by Barnabas; her spirit follows Vicki from point H to point A. As we saw, she managed to possess Roger Collins, who disappeared for a few days. During this time, she must have had him perform a spell that would restore her to physical life, much in the same way as David and Hallie brought Daphne back to life in 1970. Afterwards she caused Roger and Professor Stokes to believe she was "Cassandra Blair," an undergrad student at his college.
After Nicholas turned her into a vampire, she visited Diabolos in Hades and tattled on Nick. Her "reward" was having the vampire curse lifted from her; her punishment was being sent back to 1796. Still physically alive, she is sent back to point J, the second parallel timeline. We know this to be the case because Barnabas finds her there alive and well, with full memory of her experiences in 1968. He again kills her by having Ben set fire to her at point K.
In 1897 Quentin and Evan conjure Angelique back to life; this is the same Angelique who was torched at point K. We know this to be the case because when she meets Julia in 1897 she knows her from 1968. (The Angelique from the original timeline or the initial parallel timeline, points B-H, would not.)
Since Angelique is not destroyed (for a change) in 1897, we can presume she lives on up until the year 1970 when we find her married to Skyler Rumson. However, this implies an interesting paradox; some time during 1968 there would have been two Angeliques - Mrs. Rumson and an earlier version of Angelique who pretends to be Cassandra Blair. For all intents and purposes, Angelique this time avoids contact with the Collins family, knowing full well what's going on there. Renouncing her powers may also have been a tactical move in order to avoid alerting Nicholas to the fact that she exists in two places at the same time.
When Julia travels back to 1840 we find Angelique alive and well and making an annual pilgrimage to the mausoleum. This is the original Angelique from the original timeline (points B-E) not the parallel timeline Angelique we've been following thus far. We know this because she has no knowledge of the future or who Julia is. It is also interesting to note this would indicate that Barnabas did not kill Angelique in the original timeline as he did in the parallel timeline (and in fact Barnabas never made any mention of such a thing). Perhaps in the original timeline, after Barnabas "died" Angelique accepted the money Joshua offered her and left town rather than trying to stake Barnabas.
She, the original Angelique, is killed by Trask in 1840. What is not explored, however, is the fact that upon returning to 1971 Barnabas and Julia would find the parallel time Angelique (Mrs. Rumson) alive and well.
This could also explain how Barnabas could fall in love with Angelique in 1840. She is not the parallel time Angelique who did all those terrible things we witnessed. It's possible that in the original timeline Angelique was not responsible for Sarah's death or even Josette's, considering Barnabas makes no mention of her involvement in either case in present day.
-
Like many of you, I have always been bugged by time paradox storylines--so I won't even bother discussing "Terminator" and "Back to the Future" (two films that defy Time's logic)! But I must address Dark Shadows own forays into Time travel, most specifically 1795 and 1897.
Ok, first 1795. Victoria Winters participates in a seance and finds herself thrust into the not too distant past...1795 Collinsport, Maine, to be exact. Her own time period, 1967, supposedly is "suspended" in Time--or so we're led to believe by the opening narrative to every 1795 episode. Yet, how frozen is it? Certainly there's enough "time" for Roger, Liz, Carolyn, Julia, and Barnabas to react to the sudden presence of Phyllis Wick. Barnabas even says "what are YOU doing here?" as if he somehow recognizes her. So, are we to believe Time froze AFTER all this takes place?
And if Phyllis Wick was the original 1795 governess, originally hung as a witch, and all the events unfolded as they did with Vicky, why would Barnabas (in 1967) have such a nasty reaction to Phyllis' appearance? Throughout his experience with the 1795 Vicky, he's been nothing but kindly and courteous. His reaction to Phyllis, however, is anything but.
And if Victoria returns to 1967 (actually, 1968 ) at the exact moment in Time when she disappeared, Phyllis Wick should also return to 1795 at the exact moment of her disappearance. That means SHE'D stumble to the Old House in a daze from the carriage accident, not Victoria. And none of Victoria's experiences in 1795 would've happened. Right?
Wait, there's more! When Victoria returns to 1967/68, allegedly NO time has passed. She virtually disappeared and appeared in the blink of an eye, right? Well, we know that didn't really happen because Barnabas and the others had time to react to Phyllis (I'm getting confused--as you?). Then, after Victoria returns, there's absolutely NO mention of Sarah Collins again (though she was the whole reason behind the seance), Burke Devlin is NEVER mentioned (though Vicky was completely distraught over his death); Julia's incriminating red diary is conveniently forgotten, and Eagle Hill Cemetery is suddenly miles and miles away from Collinwood! Am I crazy, or have people been walking to it since then?
My theory: when Vicky returned to the "present," it was an alternate present...and not the one she left. How else could any of it be explained?
Now, for 1897! Barnabas goes back to the past to save David...and completely changes the timeline. If that were the case, wouldn't Janet Findley still be living when he returned to 1969? And how about old Ezra? He'd be living, too, correct?
Let's hear your take on all this!
Rod
who cares?! u thouht this out a bit too much...
-
Obviously, you cared enough to post your snide remark!
-
DaysShadows,
If you don't like a particular discussion, you don't have to read it. So kindly move off the topic and spare the rest of us, who happen to be enjoying it, from having to read your criticism of it.
-
i did enjoy it Dr Lang and when i have a spare
second i'll check it out this weekend! Do i need two aspirin time travel always make my head spin[spin] LOL
jennifer
-
First let me just say - wow! Dr. Lang's time theories do seem to work out. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, and the charts really helped explain things.
Interesting theory about why Barnabas fell in love with the 1840 Angelique!
And TWO Angeliques at the same time in present day? That even makes some kind of sense, given the Angelique/Alexis thing in PT. Love it!
The only thing I'm not sure about is that I don't remember 1897 Angelique knowing Julia when they first meet up in that storyline. Maybe I just don't remember this. It *has* been a few years since I saw 1897.
Again, very interesting posts, Dr. Lang!!!
-Cassandra B
-
Let me just echo the group and say "wow!" Time paradoxes make my head spin, but your diagrams did a nice job of explaining everything.
Luciaphil
-
Let me just echo the group and say "wow!" Time paradoxes make my head spin, but your diagrams did a nice job of explaining everything.
Ditto. I can't even get past the first paragraph without getting cornfused. But I love reading every bit of it. Just think what the writers could have come up with if they'd put half as much thought into what they were actually doing.
I have to add one more thing. Even though I thought that it all went over my head, today as I watched the resurrection of Angelique, I felt I understood it (her reactions to Quentin's answers) so much better because of what I've read in this thread. It kicks the entertainment value up a notch. I am really enjoying the show so much more now than I did the last go-round.
dom
-
WOW! and OK my head hurts, too!
Just catching up on some of the big old threads!
Have you ever used tinkertoys to act as a diagram? Ya don't have to worry about the 2-dimentional aspect of the 'flipchart' - all those time-lines can kinda wrap around each other!
Nice work Dr. Lang!
[does anybody even remember tinkertoys? or lincoln logs, or skyscrapers?]
-
[does anybody even remember tinkertoys? or lincoln logs, or skyscrapers?]
Oh yes, though I am loath to admit it. Never heard of skyscrapers but I always wanted an erector set. (Who'd have guessed there were the makings of a fabulous pun brewing way back then.) ;)
dom
-
Hi Cassandra,
Yes, in 1897 Angelique is aware of everything that happened in 1968, even though it was still in the future. She knew Julia, and she recalled her life as Cassandra, too.
What happened to her is that she was sent backwards in time by Diabolos, to 1796. After Barnabas put a torch to her during his changing of history in that time, the implication is that she remained in the Dark Realm until she was returned to this world through the incantations of Quentin and Evan.
I haven't read the rest of this topic yet, but this is my understanding of Angelique's current appearance in this story.
Best wishes,
Gothick
-
Gothick's summary of the events that led to Angelique being in 1897 with her memories of 1968 is quite accurate. This is one point in the storyline where I never had a problem with it. It made sense. Angelique had been sent back to stay forever in 1796, but was torched and when she was brought back by Quentin, it was the Angelique that had lived in 1968, been returned to 1796 and destroyed there. Of Angelique's appearances, this one made more sense than some others which totally disregard previous storylines.
Raholt
-
Just a quick question for doctor lang:
How specifically do you explain Vicki's shifting in time because of the seance? I mean, I guess I (sortof) buy that Vicki is creating "x" number of alternate universes but why? Vikci vaporized in the Bajoran wormhole? Ghost of Sarah Collins? It mkaes some sense but it just doesn't happen...
-
Yes, in 1897 Angelique is aware of everything that happened in 1968, even though it was still in the future. She knew Julia, and she recalled her life as Cassandra, too.
Thanks for clearing this up for me, Gothick!
CB
-
And just think if the writers had thought that all the time-travelling might've created alternate present-times, they could've come up with a myriad of new stories! The show might've possibly gone on, at least for several more seasons (who knows? - maybe still be on the air today, just like As the World Turns, et. al.).
Gerard
Has it ever occurred to anyone else that if one had the power of time travel maybe the best place to travel back to is before Barnabas' trip to Martinique? He could have forseen the tragedy that his affair with Angelique would cause and avoided her. Then there would be more descendents and more storylines. But of course, we wouldn't have all those wonderful Lara Parker moments. Oh well.
-
You'd think he'd at least have gone back far enough to prevent his mother's suicide.
dom
-
Woah Dr. Eric Lang, that was pretty descriptive! And it makes perfect sense too. Even though I doubt the writers had that in mind, it certainly does clear up the 'boo-boos' and makes it more understandable. I had to read it through twice, but now I fully understand it.
I have a question though. Would Jeb Hawkes be from PT 1796 II? Since the ghost of Peter Bradford came back and said Jeb killed Vicki later on in the series. Maybe he went from Parellel Time II to the original time line?
-
Just a quick question for doctor lang:
How specifically do you explain Vicki's shifting in time because of the seance?
We know that Vicki created a parallel timeline upon traveling to 1795 because if she had traveled to the original timeline then Barnabas would have remembered her from 1795 upon his first meeting with her. In the original timeline, Phyllis Wick did not disappear after the carriage overturned, and Victoria Winters did not appear and take her place as the governess. In 1968 Barnabas tells Julia that Phyllis Wick was the governess in 1968, and she was hanged.
-
Even though I doubt the writers had that in mind, it certainly does clear up the 'boo-boos' and makes it more understandable.
Actually, at least some of the writers must have been aware of the implications of creating a new timeline upon sending a character into the past. The evidence for this would be their concept of parallel time in 1970.
I have a question though. Would Jeb Hawkes be from PT 1796 II? Since the ghost of Peter Bradford came back and said Jeb killed Vicki later on in the series. Maybe he went from Parellel Time II to the original time line?
This is a bit of a messed up story since they originally intended the ghost of Paul Stoddard, not the ghost of Peter Bradford, to confront Jeb Hawkes. And yes, it would have been Jeff's ghost from parallel time II, since that's where he and Vicki wound up ultimately. It's possible, however, that the Leviathan existing in the original timeline as well; the ghost that appeared to him was from an alternate timeline, but this Jeb may have been from the original timeline (and had no idea what he was talking about.)