DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '06 II => Topic started by: IluvBarnabas on October 04, 2006, 04:19:51 AM
-
What moments on the show made you want go "huh?!!" and shake your head in disbelief?
I know two that come to my mind:
[spoiler]When Barnabas tells Angelique she was his only true love (I can understand him being grateful for saving the day at the last moment, but come on! This was the woman who murdered his mother, sister and fiancee and caused him to kill his uncle in a duel! And if Angelique was his only love then what was the deal with him longing for Josette for all his time on the show?)
Trying to pass Amanda off as Quentin's "true love" was equally ridiculous. I could buy Quentin being attracted to her, but how could he forget Beth so callously? Beth was the one who loved him so much, she wanted to help him, she stood by him even when he didn't deserve it. Quentin barely knew Amanda for what 2 or 3 weeks and we're supposed to believe he's head over heals in love with her and has forgotten Beth completely? Please!!! >:([/spoiler]
-
Well, the first one you mentioned is without a doubt number one on my list of "what?!" moments. Your second choice is also a good one. :)
Another of mine:
[spoiler]Learning that Victoria is dead during the Leviathan storyline[/spoiler]
-
The announcement that "The role of Victoria Winters will be played by Miss Betsy Durkin." That one threw me.
-
I never saw, nor will I ever, your first example re Angelique/Barnabas. I was horrified when I heard it happened and you gave all the reasons.
I really went "WHAT?!!!" when i was just getting into the 1897 Josette/Kitty reincarnation story when Barnabas gets lost in the woods and meets up with a bunch of robed, heavily madeup, strange people chanting and kneeling to him. I honestly cried "WHAT!" "ACK!" cause I was waiting for him to meet Kitty at the old house. I guess it was the Levinthian introduction but I'll never watch it due to heavy resentment that my story was so rudely interrupted and backburned. Grrr .....
-
The end of the Leviathan storyline: [spoiler]the ghost of Peter Bradford comes back to "destroy" Jeb for killing Vicki in 1796. Sheez, then Angelique spoils Peter's fun by making him leave for good. She wanted the pleasure of destroying Jeb for what he did to HER marriage to Sky![/spoiler]When I saw that I wanted to put my foot through the TV set. Didn't do it, wouldn't solve anything. But it made my hair stand on end.
Your first "WHAT???" from the 1840 is so right on too!! I still can't believe that one and never will. People who believe this have tried to give "good" rational reasons this was true but no excuse ever convinced me. It didn't and still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.[/size] :o
-
Well, it might not have been as much of a "WHAT?!!!!" as the ones mentioned, but the change in Jeb really got me.
[spoiler]There was the whole buildup with the "breathing" box, the series of evil children, each worse than his predecessor, until finally Jeb appears. There's also all the hints of how horrible the "real form" is. And, he's destined to have Carolyn. Suddenly, because of his love for Carolyn, he renounces all that he and the whole group have been working for and he "turns good."[/spoiler]
-
Quentin acted that way toward Beth because he was Quentin. He's not some hero. He's something else. Some women are attracted to the 'bad boy', and are then surprised to find him continuing to act that way.
With Barnabas and Angelique, I think they were trying to do something more complicated. The writers didn't just wake up one morning and forget all their past history. I can see where all the travelling in time and all the agonies that each caused for the other in some way, and all they had in common that no other two people would, would create a bizarre bond. Barnabas himself is no simple hero. How many terrible things did he do to people? And if redemption is possible for her, maybe she's not all that different from him.
He didn't retroactively cancel out his feelings for Josette. Josette can't be the love of his life if she can't be there for most of his life. He's finally realized she just will not ever be there again. He knew her for a couple years, out of 175.
I'm not saying he wouldn't have awakened the next day and changed his mind. I don't know.
-
A few of them:
[spoiler]In 1897, when Rachel explained how she had been a teacher at Trask's school and how horrible it was, yet they still sent the kids there. They must have wanted to get rid of them pretty badly.
During the Adam storyline, when Carolyn insisted on defending Adam even after he had just attacked her a few days earlier. In fact, the whole affection she had for him never made any sense to me. She kept talking about how he saved her life - well, he's the one who put your life in peril to start with![/spoiler]
-
But Quentin's character developed through the 1897 storyline - in fact, he had some of the best, most realistic character development on the show. The events of 1897 with the curse and Petofi had changed him a bit, and realistically so. Someone usually doesn't go through all of that and remain the same. Quentin didn't stay the 'rogue bad boy' that he was in the beginning of 1897. It's also the fact that they tried to turn Amanda into his "true love" that didn't make sense. They met and that was it. Beth and Quentin had development throughout the 1897 storyline. They had a rich history that the writers tossed aside for Amanda. It was poor storytelling.
The Barnabas and Angelique thing was character assassination for the sake of dramatic shock value at the end of the 1840 storyline, IMO. And the way that scene spit on not only Barnabas, but on other characters such as Josette, Naomi, Sarah, Victoria, his family....all the people that Angelique tried to/did destroy....they were probably rolling in their graves when they heard him with Angelique. It was suddenly as if those characters never mattered.
I also disagree that Josette can't be the love of his life because of her short stint in it. I've known plenty of people who consider their greatest love to be someone they weren't with that long, or hadn't been with in many years. But they hold that person closest to their heart. It isn't about the number of years.
Willie - I think it was the fact that Carolyn knew he didn't understand what he was doing. She noticed rather quickly that he was childlike, and that probably contributed to her feelings for him. I think she stayed sympathetic to him for too long, but I can understand where her feelings began.
-
Quentin evolved... but he didn't turn into a simple 'good guy' without flaws. He was still evolving up through the time he left Collinwood, to the point where he showed much more consideration and fondness for Beth, and was torn up over his involvement in what happened to her. But people seldom 'evolve' completely.
He was not necessarily in love with Beth. His evolution just may have been leading him toward owning up to Beth that he didn't feel toward her all that she felt toward him, so as not to lead her on. Either way, he didn't get a chance to move toward or away from Beth because of other events.
One thing that makes it hard to evolve 'completely', if there is such a thing, is that we can't be totally aware of the flaws in our own perceptions, because our perceptions are all we have. If we're emotionally impulsive it's even harder. Maybe some are hard-wired that way. Quentin is coming to understand his own jerky tendencies more and more, but there are still aspects of his impulsive nature that he hasn't come to grips with late in the 1897 storyline. Many people have believed in love at first sight, and that love conquers all.... and that if you feel something, that matters more than anything else. Pretty naive and potentially hurtful to others and self-serving, but Q was still in his twenties.
-
[spoiler]The murder of Carl[/spoiler] was the most gratuitious, stupid, unneccesary plot twist in the entire run of the show, IMHO.
-
[spoiler]Learning that Victoria is dead during the Leviathan storyline[/spoiler]
Oh yeah, how could I have forgotten that? That one definitely had me screaming "WHAT?!!!!!!" It really made my blood boil hearing that. >:(
-
I'm racking my brain trying to come up with something that made me go "WHAAT!!!!?" but I can't seem to find anything. I know there's stuff in there but it just won't come out!!! Frustrating!!
I have to say that agree with all of the moments already listed, which is probably why it's becoming difficult to think of one.
OO!! I know of one:
[spoiler]I was absolutely surprised when Gregory Trask managed to convince Judith that she was insane (or whatever he did to her), in his attempt with Evan Hanley to take control of the Collins fortune. Judith seems so strong in the early part of 1897, but as soon as Trask entered she melted like butter on a hot muffin! What the heck is up with that? And to top it all off, why would Evan do something like that when he and Quentin are supposed to be "friends"? I can't remember if Quentin tried to stop him or not, maybe he was too involved with Petofi then, but c'mon people!![/spoiler]
I'm rewatching the 1897 story on DVD now so I'll probably have these questions answered soon.
-
He was not necessarily in love with Beth.
I've always felt this way about them too. I think he cared for her as much as he was capable of it during that period but, I never had the feeling she was his all consuming one true love. She was around and she was convenient. I do think that she, on the other hand, seemed very much in love with him. Of course, I didn't get the Amanda thing either - too much too soon - and just not enough chemistry for me.
-
He was not necessarily in love with Beth.
I've always felt this way about them too. I think he cared for her as much as he was capable of it during that period but, I never had the feeling she was his all consuming one true love. She was around and she was convenient. I do think that she, on the other hand, seemed very much in love with him. Of course, I didn't get the Amanda thing either - too much too soon - and just not enough chemistry for me.
ITA w/this as well. I think the only one he REALLY loved, although it kinda came out of the blue too, was Daphne. Too bad that [spoiler]they didn't hook them up in 1841 PT, but then we wouldn't have had the Bramwell/Catherine/Morgan/Daphne quadrangle we had would we?[/spoiler] ;D
-
the deaths of Edith & Angelique in 1840, with NO explanation as to how these deaths affected the 1897/modern dress stories was a major WHAT?????
Ending in 1841 PT without tying up loose ends in 1971 wasn't just a WHAT?
That was a WTF?? ?? ?? ? ???
David
-
Another WHAT??? plot that makes my hair stand on end is Cassandra's spell on Liz. [spoiler]Really! how much can one stand to hear the classy Elizabeth Stoddard talk about her own death and being buried alive! Yes at first I can be very sympathatic but after weeks of this, one wants to scream more than just WHAT???[/spoiler]I was very happy to see that subplot end![/size]
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/dsbarnabasfan/miscemoticons/Duh3hitforehead.gif)
-
[spoiler]The murder of Carl[/spoiler] was the most gratuitious, stupid, unneccesary plot twist in the entire run of the show, IMHO.
Yeah, Carl...sigh... (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/dsbarnabasfan/miscemoticons/Thumbsdown.gif)that was tragic and even I was angry at Barnabas for that decision but I blame the writers more than the character since Barnabas was written that way [using Jessica's voice in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"]
-
[spoiler]The murder of Carl[/spoiler] was the most gratuitious, stupid, unneccesary plot twist in the entire run of the show, IMHO.
That one really bugged me, too, because I absolutely loved that character. But, I guess, in "real life" he was given the opportunity to go and do something else for awhile so his character had to be written out. They did that quite a few times with the performers during that storyline so they could, at least temporarily, pursue other things.
Gerard
-
I'm sure that John Karlen had another "gig" he wanted to do, and Dan was willing to accomodate him.
I just don't buy that the solution they came up with was the only, or even the best choice.
THIS one was lazy writing at its worst!
-
As a youngster, I found a lot of the PT 1970 goings-on not only "WHAT?!!!!"-inducing, but queasily uncomfortable, confusing and definitely TV-M 14 moments. Examples:
[spoiler]The whole demise-of-Will Loomis sequence---- wherein PT Angelique reminds him of how she teased 'n' pleased the married-but-unhappy author, tormented him about Barnabas, and for all intents and purposes badgered him out the tower window. I wondered then why he didn't just shove her out of his way and scram out the door, but it seemed like the scene was written as though the character WANTED, for many reasons, to be made to feel guilty and worthy of punishment---- pretty complex concept for a 13-yr-old to grasp.
The implied rape and/or physical abuse of Buffy by Yaeger / Longworth, not to mention his mistreatment and murder of Maggie and Sabrina respectively. Even though many aspects of the sexually-threatening Yager were ripped from "Jekyl and Hyde" (and the previous film versions, one of which was pretty racy for 1930s) they knew young kids were still watching, so they couldn't show much--- therein lies the ambiguous "did he or didn't he?" But the aftermath (including Barnabas's own victimization of the victim) sure left a sour taste and more confusion for the innocent 1970 adolescent mind that was once mine. Though now I sometimes think, both Longworth AND his alter-ego were impotent and only capable of expressing themselves by sexually-tinged violence.
The whole sequence of horrible murders that left only 3 or 4 members of the PT Collins family standing. Geesh, no amount of grief counselling's going to help the survivors "move on" and find "closure" from all THAT trauma![/spoiler]
And guess what? Even after viewing those scenes for the first time as an adult, 20 years after the first time I saw them, I STILL felt creeped and corrupted because much of the nastiness was only thematically supernatural in nature--- it was more an intense reflection of the ugliness some experience in real life. Which, ironically, interpreting these unpleasant human aspects in terms of vampires, witches, ghosts, etc. is supposed to sublimate or explain or leaven in some way.[/b]
-
[spoiler]not to mention his mistreatment and murder of Maggie and Sabrina respectively. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]Yeager didn't murder Maggie, she was alive and well at the end of 1970 PT[/spoiler] ;)
-
I'm sure that John Karlen had another "gig" he wanted to do, and Dan was willing to accomodate him.
I just don't buy that the solution they came up with was the only, or even the best choice.
THIS one was lazy writing at its worst!
I agree they could have found another way to write Carl off.
[spoiler]Having Barnabas kill a blood relative in cold blood[/spoiler] ticked off a lot of fans (including myself even though I am a huge fan of Barnabas' and not too keen on Carl). The writers should have realized that the whole [spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler] just might alienate a lot of the vampire's biggest fans. I still love Barnabas but I can't really defend what he did this time.
Though I suppose dsbarnabasfan has a point, the writers are really more to blame in regards to Carl's fate more than anyone.
-
[The writers should have realized that the whole [spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler] just might alienate a lot of the vampire's biggest fans. I still love Barnabas but I can't really defend what he did this time.
Though I suppose dsbarnabasfan has a point, the writers are really more to blame in regards to Carl's fate more than anyone.
I love this forum; it keeps giving me reasons to like things that I didn't like before.
Bravo to the writers! All that time spent in 1795 and 1968 kowtowing to the audience, making Barnabas sympathetic, making him a victim, making him a hero, and then POW!!! they rebel, and hit you with
[spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler]
Too bad it didn't happen on July 4th.
-
I agree they could have found another way to write Carl off.
[spoiler]Having Barnabas kill a blood relative in cold blood[/spoiler]
Yeah, ITA w/this! They could have had Barnabas [spoiler]simply put Carl under his spell like he did Nora (and he did it w/out biting her, a sort of hynosis by having her stare into his eyes ala Angelique). He didn't have to kill him![/spoiler]
-
[spoiler]not to mention his mistreatment and murder of Maggie and Sabrina respectively.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Yeager didn't murder Maggie, she was alive and well at the end of 1970 PT[/spoiler] ;)
I think you missed "respectively" (for each separately and in that order), so she wasn't saying Maggie was murdered. :)
-
I think you missed "respectively" (for each separately and in that order), so she wasn't saying Maggie was murdered. :)
Ah! You are correct madam! ;) [6184]
-
For better or worse, whenever a character/actor was being written out of the show, the tact the writers most often chose was to kill them off. I'll grant them that it was certainly the most dramatic choice.
And while we're on this subject, there's been something that has always puzzled me. I most definitely agree that the act of [spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler]was reprehensible and in no way am I trying to defend it, BUT [spoiler]Carl was determined to expose Barnabas, so at the very least Barnabas acted in self-defense.[/spoiler]However, the act that I think was even more reprehensible was [spoiler]Dirk programming Judith to shoot Rachel. In that instance Dirk's motivation was nothing but pure revenge, and Rachel had simply stumbled into the wrong place at the wrong time through absolutely no fault of her own. Yet poor Rachel's death doesn't elicit half the sympathy or outrage that Carl's death does. I just wonder why that is? For me, anyway, Rachel's death is more tragic than Carl's...[/spoiler]
-
However, the act that I think was even more reprehensible was [spoiler]Dirk programming Judith to shoot Rachel. In that instance Dirk's motivation was nothing but pure revenge, and Rachel had simply stumbled into the wrong place at the wrong time through absolutely no fault of her own. Yet poor Rachel's death doesn't elicit half the sympathy or outrage that Carl's death does. I just wonder why that is? For me, anyway, Rachel's death is more tragic than Carl's...[/spoiler]
I have to agree that what Dirk did to Rachel was despicable. But it really doesn't make what Barnabas did any less bad. He had other options, he could have put Carl under his power like [spoiler]he did with Charity but he didn't.[/spoiler]
Dirk didn't believe or didn't want to believe that Barnabas [spoiler]simply could not bring back Laura just like that (and considering that so many people have come back from the dead on this show it's not hard to see why). Sadly Rachel was the unlucky one he chose to wreak his revenge against Barnabas on (not to mention Judith).[/spoiler]
I guess in both cases, both Barnabas and Dirk failed to look at their options objectively and at the tragic expense of others. :(
-
What i don't get is that John Karlen was gone for a long time brefore he returned as Carl for those few episodes. They should have just let him stay away and fade out like they did with Tony Peterson and Frank Garner.
[spoiler]The writers really did damage to 1897 by having Barnabas responsible not only for the death of Carl, but also Dirk, Pansy, and Rachael. When I saw these episodes for the first time I thought he defeated the purpose of trying to save David by causing the deaths of these other people whose lives he should have known not to interfere with in the first place! He was not a smart time traveler and appears in 1897 as the judge and jury of whose life should go where and how.
The writers seem to not realize that he should have taken a passive role and watched the events unfold as they originally did, like Vicky in 1795. At least that would have solved the mystery of the ghosts in the present clearer.
The same with the Laura situation as Jamison did live on to the present, so why was he so worried she would kill him by fire? It wasn't necessary for him to interfer with this whatsoever, just for dramtic effect to make him appear to be the hero.
At least he seems to have wised up more in 1840 by staying mostly on the sidelines.[/spoiler]
-
What i don't get is that John Karlen was gone for a long time brefore he returned as Carl for those few episodes. They should have just let him stay away and fade out like they did with Tony Peterson and Frank Garner.
[spoiler]The same with the Laura situation as Jamison did live on to the present, so why was he so worried she would kill him by fire? It wasn't necessary for him to interfer with this whatsoever, just for dramtic effect to make him appear to be the hero.[/spoiler]
In the case of Laura and Jamison, well obviously we don't know what really happened there before Barnabas went back and changed things other than Jamison did live on to carry the name. [spoiler]You can't really fault Barnabas for wanting to keep Jamison alive. After all Laura was hell-bent on luring Jamison and Nora to their fiery deaths along with her. Suppose
Laura had succeeded, without Jamison, there would be no Elizabeth, Roger, Carolyn and David.....though one has to wonder did Barnabas' going back to the past bring about Laura's return....when the events of 1897 played out originally did she just simply stay dead?
Well in any case, Barnabas probably did meddle way too much than he should have (for better or worse) but he never really intended to go back to 1897....when he used the I Ching, he simply wanted to contact Quentin's ghost and get him to release David unharmed.[/spoiler]
-
However, the act that I think was even more reprehensible was [spoiler]Dirk programming Judith to shoot Rachel. In that instance Dirk's motivation was nothing but pure revenge, and Rachel had simply stumbled into the wrong place at the wrong time through absolutely no fault of her own. Yet poor Rachel's death doesn't elicit half the sympathy or outrage that Carl's death does. I just wonder why that is?[/spoiler]
For one thing, Carl was a more likable character (at least in my opinion); he was funnier, more innocent, and had been on the verge of a happy life with Pansy Faye when it all hit the fan. Also [spoiler]Carl's death was more shocking than Rachel's because it involved the conspiracy of two family members--his own brother Quentin and Barnabas, who claims to care for his family so much and is always willing to jump through hoops or go back in time to protect their welfare. Rachel was unfortunate, a damsel in distress who led a tragic life and died a sad, unfair, and tragic death, but Dirk using her as a tool of vengeance doesn't come close to the betrayal that Carl suffered.[/spoiler]
ProfStokes
-
Why would [spoiler]Rachel's death[/spoiler] elicit fan outrage? Was Dirk supposed to be a wonderful person who would never do such a thing? I still don't have the first fifth of 1897 so maybe I missed the bit that made the fans love Dirk so much.
I liked Lydia's answer very much. It was along the lines of remarks made earlier by Penny Dreadful. The [spoiler]murder of Carl[/spoiler] was SO reprehensible, in an obvious way, that it seems unrealistic and very far-fetched to accuse the writers of simply being "lazy"... after all, when a character on The Edge of Night needed to be written out, a kind and good character, they didn't have the main protagonist of the series (if there was one) just haul off and shoot him between the eyes, expecting the audience to still root for that main character.
[spoiler]The murder of Carl[/spoiler] was not justified much in dialogue on-screen, so it certainly seems as if we're supposed to buy it, automatically, without explanation. They may have been going for something unexpected and challenging though, and hoping the viewers would appreciate it without any explanation, which is more interesting.
edited by mod
-
For one thing, Carl was a more likable character (at least in my opinion); he was funnier, more innocent, and had been on the verge of a happy life with Pansy Faye when it all hit the fan. Also [spoiler]Carl's death was more shocking than Rachel's because it involved the conspiracy of two family members--his own brother Quentin and Barnabas, who claims to care for his family so much and is always willing to jump through hoops or go back in time to protect their welfare. Rachel was unfortunate, a damsel in distress who led a tragic life and died a sad, unfair, and tragic death, but Dirk using her as a tool of vengeance doesn't come close to the betrayal that Carl suffered.[/spoiler]
I understand what you're saying - and I'm not saying you're wrong - but, I don't know, something about someone (Rachel in this case) dying as a victim of circumstances completely out of their control just strikes me as so unfair and wholely tragic.
Why would [spoiler]Rachel's death[/spoiler] elicit fan outrage? Was Dirk supposed to be a wonderful person who would never do such a thing? I still don't have the first fifth of 1897 so maybe I missed the bit that made the fans love Dirk so much.
It has much less to do with Dirk and much more to do with Rachel.
-
People we like die a lot on DS. It's a show about tragedy and misery.
-
People we like die a lot on DS. It's a show about tragedy and misery.
Ain't that the truth. [spoiler]Rachel, Josette, Naomi, Sarah, Jeremiah, are just a few I can think of who met sad and undeserved fates. Even in the case of Vicki and Peter in which we had assumed had led happy lives together unfortunately the writers (or Dan Curtins) had to put in that stupid twist in which we learned they both came to bad ends because of Jeb Hawkes.[/spoiler]
The closest anyone came to a happy ending was at the end of the 1840 storyline where [spoiler]Barnabas, Julia and Professor Stokes return to 1971 and find the family alive and Collinwood in tact[/spoiler]
-
shortly after the storyline returned to the present after 1795 i had a few "what?!" moments(and not just julia's switch from pageboy to pixie).
[spoiler]for instance during the whole first year barnabas couldn't bring himself to bite vicki.he was too fond of her.it was an integral part of the plot.suddenly he bites her.does anything interesting come from this development?
no.after a few episodes they get into the car crash and the dr.lang business begins and all of the implications of that are completely forgotten and the show moves in a different direction.[/spoiler]
as for the business with carl i wasn't that shocked.barnabas was in danger of becoming too much of a goody-two-shoes by this point and this re-established an element of dangerousness that had been missing for awhile.
-
But killing [spoiler]Carl, as Barnabas did to protect his secret, which he must,[/spoiler] could drastically alter the history in the future. So I see this [spoiler]murder by Barnabas[/spoiler] detrimental to his cause when going to 1897 to save the family. We've seen Barnabas, as a vampire, use other means to control his victims or potential threats through [spoiler]hypnotism, controlling their will, or making them forget something very important. He could have done this to Carl, made his leave Collinsport with Pansy which of course would have saved her life too.[/spoiler] Then John Karlen could leave on his acting venture and come back into the story IF he returned. It would have protected the idea that Barnabas did NOT kill his own family members.[/size]
-
I think some of the people who find Carl's death so hard to accept might be laboring under the misconception that Barnabas somehow became a good guy. Yes, Barn often does things to try to protect his family/friends, but he's not a good guy by any means in the classic sense. He lies, cheats, manipulates, browbeats and, yes, even murders a family member if he sees it as a means to an end - and it doesn't even have to be for his own ends. In a book of principles that Barn might use to rule his life, one most certainly would not find one that reads "Do No Harm." ;) That fact is actually one of the things that makes Barn a fascinating character: Right in the middle of doing something seemingly heroic, he can turn on a dime and do something reprehensible if he sees it as a means to an end.
-
(breathing a hearty sigh of relief)
thank you mysterious for posting this outside of the spoiler box.
for years this one particular plot development seems to get "spoilered" more than any other and i think it's obvious most of us know all about it.
-
Actually, that was only because I spoilered the whole topic by adding the Spoiler Alert icon to it. Having spoiler boxes in almost every post was getting to be a bit ridiculous when just using the Spoiler Alert for the whole topic accomplishes the same thing. ;) But, yes, I agree that mostly everyone is aware of how Carl dies. Though there's probably always going to be some new fan who doesn't...
-
Actually, that was only because I spoilered the whole topic by adding the Spoiler Alert icon to it. Having spoiler boxes in almost every post was getting to be a bit ridiculous when just using the Spoiler Alert for the whole topic accomplishes the same thing. ;) But, yes, I agree that mostly everyone is aware of how Carl dies. Though there's probably always going to be some new fan who doesn't...
So if there is a spoiler icon for the whole thread, we don't have to use the spoiler codes? Thank god!!! I have to agree, it gets crazy with all those white spaces between disjoined words. [hall_shocked][hall2_wink] [hall2_rolleyes]
-
More Carl spoilers.
I like leaving a lot of space. I find that by the time I notice the word "spoiler", I'm already reading the spoiler itself.
Barnabas did become a decent person, to me, just not in a simple way. He would break the rules of ordinary accepted behavior, take risks with others' lives but would get their agreement first unless prevented, and take revenge himself instead of calling the police. You can always see or infer what justifications he would have for this or that action, and the reasons tended to make sense.
The thing with Carl crossed over a line, and was different. To say he could have found other ways to protect his secret is to downplay how bad this was. There are some things you don't do. Even if it was "the only way" you don't kill an innocent relative to shut him up.
I can accept that a decent person was struggling with a darkness he couldn't understand, and that he was often on the brink of doing something monstrous in a "good cause" without realizing it.
-
Barnabas did become a decent person, to me, just not in a simple way. He would break the rules of ordinary accepted behavior, take risks with others' lives but would get their agreement first unless prevented, and take revenge himself instead of calling the police. You can always see or infer what justifications he would have for this or that action, and the reasons tended to make sense. The thing with Carl crossed over a line, and was different. To say he could have found other ways to protect his secret is to downplay how bad this was. There are some things you don't do. Even if it was "the only way" you don't kill an innocent relative to shut him up.
ITA w/this! There were other ppl who knew B's secret (Beth, Nora, Charity etc...) and he didn't kill any of them. Instead he bit two to put them under his power and hynotized the other. Why couldn't this have been done w/Carl?? And if the only reason for killing him off really was so that Johnny could go off the show to do a play, HELLO!!?? Just send he and Pansy away again. Or, if killing Pansy was necessary so that her spirit could lighten Charity up, have Carl leave town because of grief. Or, if it was integral for Carl to find out about Barnabas for dramatic effect, then lock his ass up in the tower room for the duration of the plotline, something OTHER than killing him. That was the only time I was really pissed at Barnabas. [angrb]
-
let me throw this out there.
do people get upset that barnabas killed carl collins(a minor character at best)or that he killed a john karlen(a.k.a. willie loomis)character?
the thing with the time travel storylines is that the writers looked at them as "temporary".the characters were disposable.look at 1795 when half the cast got killed off.then when the storyline returned to the present fans could take comfort in that their favorite characters were alive and well(usually).
if john karlen had wanted to leave the show during the 1987 storyline the writers probably didn't think it was worth it to come up with a happy ending for him and the potential for dramatic affect far greater if he met the grisly demise that he did.
then of course old willie could always be brought back when the storyline returned to the present and no harm no foul.
-
This has nothing to do with whether we want to see Carl live or not. The problem is that Barnabas killed him. It's the immoraity or amorality of it. And Carl wasn't like Willie at all. You don't kill an innocent relative, a decent guy who just wanted to save his fiancee, to shut him up.
Part of my point was that the murder was SO reprehensible AND stupidly self-destructive too, that it can't just be a writer's "blunder", a failed tactic to get JK out of DS. The writers must have thought about what they were doing, and had some reason for it, dramatically. Add to this the fact that this one act sets off everything that happens after this. He's discovered partly because of the murder, and it makes Edward determined to slaughter Barnabas. It's a pivotal moment for the writers, not a whim.
It's hard to see the act as an attempt to show something about the character of Barnabas when no character, no friend of Barnabas's, ever stops during all these events and says out loud, "Barnabas, what you've done is despicable (I can't get Daffy Duck out of my head after typing that)." So an impression is left that we're supposed to approve. Maybe they expected us to figure it out for ourselves, though.
-
They could have did what they did with David Ford in 1795 and simply not have the character return at all.
-
Barnabas did become a decent person, to me, just not in a simple way. He would break the rules of ordinary accepted behavior, take risks with others' lives but would get their agreement first unless prevented, and take revenge himself instead of calling the police. You can always see or infer what justifications he would have for this or that action, and the reasons tended to make sense.
Interesting thought occurred to me in reading your post. Barnabas does think he knows better than anyone else what is best for them, but that's in large part noblesse oblige; the arrogance of his class. Now, the fact that he tends to take justice into his own hands every chance he gets reminds me a lot of wild west justice. And then it occurred to me that in his place and time, that was pretty much what was done. If I am remembering right, it was well into the 1700s before even the city of London, the largest in the Western World at that time, had anything resembling a public police force. Rich individuals hired their own law enforcement to attend to things, the famous Bow Street runners known to any regular reader of Regency era novels. (Collinsport itself seemed to have a jail and a sheriff and that was IT.The judges seemed to be from outside, likely the equivalent of Circuit Riders in the old west.)
So, to bring this sort of back on track, it struck me as interesting that taking the law into one's own hands was one aspect of his 18th century upbringing that he never seems to have unlearned. Of course, we don't have any way to know if he even tried.
-
That is an intriguing theory, Magnus. I don't think anyone has presented quite this way before. However, I have to disagree about Carl's murder being thought out by the writers. The ratings went up when Barnabas was "bad" usually when he was biting people. We don't know what was said to the writers by the producers when it was known Karlen was taking off. It could have been a ratings driven decision and nothing more.
Nancy
Part of my point was that the murder was SO reprehensible AND stupidly self-destructive too, that it can't just be a writer's "blunder", a failed tactic to get JK out of DS. The writers must have thought about what they were doing, and had some reason for it, dramatically. Add to this the fact that this one act sets off everything that happens after this. He's discovered partly because of the murder, and it makes Edward determined to slaughter Barnabas. It's a pivotal moment for the writers, not a whim.
-
ITA w/this! There were other ppl who knew B's secret (Beth, Nora, Charity etc...) and he didn't kill any of them. Instead he bit two to put them under his power and hynotized the other. Why couldn't this have been done w/Carl?? And if the only reason for killing him off really was so that Johnny could go off the show to do a play, HELLO!!?? Just send he and Pansy away again. Or, if killing Pansy was necessary so that her spirit could lighten Charity up, have Carl leave town because of grief. Or, if it was integral for Carl to find out about Barnabas for dramatic effect, then lock his ass up in the tower room for the duration of the plotline, something OTHER than killing him. That was the only time I was really pissed at Barnabas. [angrb]
Excellent points Buzz! And, admittedly my memory is hazy on most of the early eps as I don't have them yet, but wasn't there a scene in Barn's early appearance where he wants to kill David for finding out about him, rather than do the mind wipe thing?
Back to the biting or hypnotizing angle -- it could well have done and then had the character disappear except for side references. Done that to enough characters before. And one would think that Barn would consider how useful Carl might have been as his human servant, too. He could have gone places and done things that the gypsies would have been way out of place taking care of. And, just a feeling I have from the body language the actor used, is that Quentin either legitimately thought, or had convinced himself, that Barn knew a way besides killing Carl to shut him up. [hall2_sad]
What surprises me is that with all these lovely possible scenarios to play with, I have only seen ONE fanfiction story, either fanzine or on line, where anyone did a "what if" on Carl's death. And I've yet to find anyone who has tried to rework the scene with Quentin and Carl in the mausoleum. [hall2_shocked]
Of course, I was also surprised to find out that I was the only author to have ever done a story reworking Quentin and Amanda's not so excellent adventure..... [hall2_rolleyes]
-
This has nothing to do with whether we want to see Carl live or not. The problem is that Barnabas killed him. It's the immoraity or amorality of it. And Carl wasn't like Willie at all. You don't kill an innocent relative, a decent guy who just wanted to save his fiancee, to shut him up.
Part of my point was that the murder was SO reprehensible AND stupidly self-destructive too, that it can't just be a writer's "blunder", a failed tactic to get JK out of DS. The writers must have thought about what they were doing, and had some reason for it, dramatically. Add to this the fact that this one act sets off everything that happens after this. He's discovered partly because of the murder, and it makes Edward determined to slaughter Barnabas. It's a pivotal moment for the writers, not a whim.
It's hard to see the act as an attempt to show something about the character of Barnabas when no character, no friend of Barnabas's, ever stops during all these events and says out loud, "Barnabas, what you've done is despicable (I can't get Daffy Duck out of my head after typing that)." So an impression is left that we're supposed to approve. Maybe they expected us to figure it out for ourselves, though.
Hmm some excellent points about this not showing us anything about the character of Barnabas -- but what if that was not the purpose? Lets try looking at this from another angle, given that 1897 is not BARNABAS's story but QUENTIN'S story, in which Barnabas is in actuality just a supporting character. How does the scene in the mausoleum and the following death of Carl carry Quentin's story forward?
Now, I must tell everyone up front that the scene in the mausoleum was the one that took me from just time shifting DS and taping over the eps each day [8311] [8311] (If I have KEPT them all, I'd have had the series complete form the beginning!) to keeping every single episode I time shifted. It's the classic last seat in the lifeboat scenario, and how the characters react tells you a LOT about them -- especially in the hands of talented actors like Karlen and Selby. You have to feel for poor Carl, who thinks he has done something wonderful by finding the vampire, only to find his brother has apparently just lost his mind and locked him in WITH the vampire for no apparent reason. When you see Quentin's reaction of remorse and guilt as he stands outside, you see a man who KNOWS what he has done and KNOWS how vile it is -- but is too much of a coward at this point to risk his life by either telling Carl the truth or letting him expose Barnabas. (Contrast this with the later scene when Petofi is trying to force Quentin to stake Barnabas -- and he KNOWS his uncursed survival depends on this, but in the end he CANNOT force himself to do it. How much of this character development -- the strength needed to be unable to take the easy way out despite the consequences -- was based on his making the WRONG decision with Carl?) [hall2_cry]
Anyway, back to Barnabas -- as I said in an earlier post I think its likely that Quentin, when he returned, was hoping on some level that Barn had NOT killed Carl. He DIDN'T say "you killed my brother!", but "Is my brother dead?". Cut to the scene in the drawing room, when Barn actually DOES kill Carl -- again under circumstances where a simple mind wipe would have been A LOT less MESSY. (That hand hanging out of the curtains is just TOO much!) It's one of those cases where you would LOVE to have gotten your mitts on the actors at the time to find out what THEY were trying to put across. However, the body language involved in Quentin's reaction gave me the impression that he didn't really believe Barn would do it until he saw Carl's dead body. And he also looked scared out of his wits of Barnabas -- note how fast he was to reassure Barn that he had had to do it. (And Barnabas at the time was showing no real guilt or remorse to need consolation.) I get the feeling that Quentin's finely honed survival instincts had reasoned out that Carl had been killed for knowing about Barnabas -- and that he, Quentin, knew as much or more than Carl did. (Keep in mind that the audience knew that Q was safe, as he was the McGuffin that brought Barnabas to the past, but Quentin had no real idea what Barnabas' FULL motive for helping him was, so must have felt he was as expendable as Carl.)
So, the bottom line is that I think that though the reason the murder of Carl makes no sense from the pov of developing Barnabas' character, it does make sense for the character development and maturation of Quentin. And, that being the goal, Barnabas' behavior was inconsistant with some earlier actions in HIS character development because consistancy with HIS character was not the purpose of the subplot at all.
-
but is part of the reason that people find barnabas' actions so despicable here being that carl was played by john karlen?
what if a new,unknown actor had been hired to play carl for his 11 episodes?would people still be so shocked?
conversely what if carl had been played with hair-touching finesse by roger davis?would some even find this mildly entertaining?
in other words is part of the outrage over this crime a transference of affection for john karlen/willie loomis?
true,they could have had barnabas place carl under his control(like beth and charity)but if karlen wanted to leave anyway what would have been the point of this?they got the most bang for their buck as this played out. [hall2_shocked]
-
Pansity------ all that was great, and thanks. I can't summon up any reponnse yet, but I can correct one impression I might have left... I wasn't saying the event didn't show us anything about BCs character. I was trying to say that it's difficult for a viewer to interpret it as an attempt to say something about Barnabas's character, even though it's very possible that this is just what the writers were trying to do. We hear no friend of BC's denouncing him for it, and almost always when the protagonist of a story does something, we're supposed to support it, at least unless there's some explanation via another character that the protagonist has done wrong. Our point of view is supposed to be that of the main character, or so we assume instinctively, unless told explicitly otherwise. It could be considered a daring sort of move to just have the "protagonist" unexpectedly slaughter someone just to protect his own pathetic little secret, and leave the audience to work out the morality for themselves, without it being laid out clearly for them.
In that situation, Quentin could very easily have been shocked, but more terrified for his own safety... in which case, we certainly wouldn't have heard any handy soliloquies (I've never used that word and don't know if i'm using it correctly) from him about how wrong the murder was. I'm very glad that they didn't have him wander off someplace where he couldn't be overheard, and start saying aloud to himself that, oh no, Barnabas is a murderer, I'd better keep my mouth shut.
As for taking the law into his own hands, that's a great point about the arrogance of his class, and I didn't know the history you presented. I also think, though, that our current outlook, that the police and courts should handle everything, may be a prejudice of our own era. In the 60s, there were many series which had main characters in special circumstances, outside of mainstream society, which juries and judges would never understand. There was an appreciation by writers sometimes of the fact that the majority often to have little imagination and tolerance.
-
It's no trouble for me to separate a character from the actor. I adore Thayer David as an actor, but I don't like all of his characters. I didn't care when Matthew Morgan, Timothy Stokes or Mordecai Grimes died, but it did trouble me when Ben was killed. Similarly, although I'm generally not a Roger Davis fan, I did like Peter Bradford. It just so happens that I like John Karlen and I like each of his characters. If, on the other hand, Roger Davis or Craig Slocum or one of the other actors had played Carl and could have done so with the same joie de vivre and zaniness that the character required, I believe I would still have become fond of Carl. However, if another actor had been introduced to play the partl, I think it would have been a giveaway that this was a marked, throwaway character (like the infamous redshirts of "Star Trek") and the audience may have subconsciously realized it was better not to get attached to him.
Wow, Pansity, your insights into the significance and purpose of the murder and how it may have affected Quentin's development are amazing and enlightening. It's clear that you've analyzed this deeply. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! [hall2_cheesy]
ProfStokes
-
Good point. One of my favorite characters was Dr. Woodard as played by Mr. Gerringer. When Peter T. took over the role, he annoyed me so much that his death didn't bother me (apart from the fact the character was a good guy).
Nancy
but is part of the reason that people find barnabas' actions so despicable here being that carl was played by john karlen?
what if a new,unknown actor had been hired to play carl for his 11 episodes?would people still be so shocked?
conversely what if carl had been played with hair-touching finesse by roger davis?would some even find this mildly entertaining?
in other words is part of the outrage over this crime a transference of affection for john karlen/willie loomis?
true,they could have had barnabas place carl under his control(like beth and charity)but if karlen wanted to leave anyway what would have been the point of this?they got the most bang for their buck as this played out. [hall2_shocked]
-
i agree nancy,
dr.woodard's final,confrontational scene was very anticlimactic for me due to the replacement of robert gerringer by another actor.it just didn't have the same effect.
if i recall this was also a kinescoped episode so it was lacking there as well.
it was a huge moment but for various reasons wasn't as impactful as it should have been.
-
Now that you guys mention it, the recasting of Dr. Woodard from Robert Gerringer to Peter Turgeon was another Dark Shadows "WHAT?!!!!" moment for me.
[spoiler]Woodard's death[/spoiler] definitely would have had more impact for me if Gerringer had played him to the end
-
Wow, Pansity, your insights into the significance and purpose of the murder and how it may have affected Quentin's development are amazing and enlightening. It's clear that you've analyzed this deeply. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! [hall2_cheesy]
Thanks, ProfStokes. I must say though that I can't take credit for coming up with that analysis on the fly. It's something I had already had to think out for a fanfiction story. In order to do it properly I HAD to understand the POV's of both Quentin and Carl, so I had watched the episodes like a hawk looking for minute bits of business that made up character, motivation, etc.
-
Pansity------ all that was great, and thanks. I can't summon up any reponnse yet, but I can correct one impression I might have left... I wasn't saying the event didn't show us anything about BCs character. I was trying to say that it's difficult for a viewer to interpret it as an attempt to say something about Barnabas's character, even though it's very possible that this is just what the writers were trying to do. We hear no friend of BC's denouncing him for it, and almost always when the protagonist of a story does something, we're supposed to support it, at least unless there's some explanation via another character that the protagonist has done wrong. Our point of view is supposed to be that of the main character, or so we assume instinctively, unless told explicitly otherwise. It could be considered a daring sort of move to just have the "protagonist" unexpectedly slaughter someone just to protect his own pathetic little secret, and leave the audience to work out the morality for themselves, without it being laid out clearly for them.
In that situation, Quentin could very easily have been shocked, but more terrified for his own safety... in which case, we certainly wouldn't have heard any handy soliloquies (I've never used that word and don't know if i'm using it correctly) from him about how wrong the murder was. I'm very glad that they didn't have him wander off someplace where he couldn't be overheard, and start saying aloud to himself that, oh no, Barnabas is a murderer, I'd better keep my mouth shut.
As for taking the law into his own hands, that's a great point about the arrogance of his class, and I didn't know the history you presented. I also think, though, that our current outlook, that the police and courts should handle everything, may be a prejudice of our own era. In the 60s, there were many series which had main characters in special circumstances, outside of mainstream society, which juries and judges would never understand. There was an appreciation by writers sometimes of the fact that the majority often to have little imagination and tolerance.
Will be looking forward to more thoughts from you on this Magnus. I understand what you are trying to say regarding the writers and BC's character development. So often it's hard to separate what the writers come up with and may later have to drop, or take in a different direction at the proverbial drop of a hat from what fits with character continuity.
And LOL on Quentin wandering off somewhere for a convenient soliloquy (best I can tell you did get that right) to explain stuff that writers and actors are supposed to be putting across by dialog, action and "stage business" alone. Thats one of the funny things with DS -- sometimes the writers do things so dumb and insulting to the intelligence that you want to shoot them, and other times they give you hints and innuendo and have enough respect for their audience that they expect you will "get it".
Oh, and the history I mentioned is just stuff I managed to pick up by osmosis, just from happening to read mysteries and romances and other types of books set in the right era. Of course, the Wild West references I HAVE to credit to History Channel. They have a great show called "Wild West Tech" that gives you a lot of nifty background on developments that led to other things in that time frame.
-
let me throw this out there.
do people get upset that barnabas killed carl collins(a minor character at best)or that he killed a john karlen(a.k.a. willie loomis)character?
My aversion is the fact that Barnabas killed a family member, HIS family member, that could effect the outcome of the future he was trying to protect in the first place. Barnabas had NO idea if Carl played an important role in the future of the Collins. I understand the need to protect his secret though. Remember when he was meeting Edith Collins in her room and she recognized him! The tension was immense as he stepped towards her just before Edward walked into the room. Does anyone think he would have killed the old woman right there and then? Hard to say because she was on her death bed and just the fright send her into a delirium. When I saw that scene, I though he was going to kill her but I think he has a soft spot for women. ;)
Also by this time, I really felt Barnabas had repented his evil ways even though he was a vampire again. That was just a minor afflicition he had to deal with while in the past. Earlier, someone made an interesting point that they thought Barnabas was still basically selfish [true] and evil [my interpretation, not their words]. I still have a hard time believing that after all the ways the writers tried to convince us of how good he was now.
-
My take on Barnabas is that initially, as a young man before he became a vampire, he was a haughty, emotional, immature yet relatively gentle guy. AFTER he became the vamp his personality changed. But, in between he became human again and then kinda semi-vampire. Throughout his adult vampire life he alternates between complete evil to semi-evil to good and then he does something sneaky - like kill someone and one doesn't know what to think of Barnabas except that he can't be completely trusted. Not sure if this was just writer fluctuations due to story requirements or that the writers were genuinely trying to convey a complex and permanently traumatized individual. Maybe Barnabas never recovered from being a vampire or to what happened to his family.
-
Maybe Barnabas never recovered from being a vampire or to what happened to his family.
Nice insites into the complexity of Barnabas' personality - pre and post vampire. I would imagine beging cursed, losing your family and dying only to return to find out that you can only exist by killing WOULD score pretty high on the life stress list. I know it would scar my personality beyond recognition.
[female_skull]
[/size]
-
Maybe Barnabas never recovered from being a vampire or to what happened to his family.
I would imagine beging cursed, losing your family and dying only to return to find out that you can only exist by killing WOULD score pretty high on the life stress list. I know it would scar my personality beyond recognition.
... not to mention waking up in a coffin 175 years in the future after you've been dead (sort of). I'm amazed he showed traces of sanity at all. [hall2_tongue]
-
They could have did what they did with David Ford in 1795 and simply not have the character return at all.
Coud have done, not could have did. Sorry, it's the English major in me! [hall2_grin]
-
My aversion is the fact that Barnabas killed a family member, HIS family member, that could effect the outcome of the future he was trying to protect in the first place. Barnabas had NO idea if Carl played an important role in the future of the Collins.
That's what pissed me off, that it was a family member, not who the actor playing him was. And also the fact that he didnt' HAVE to kill him to keep his secret safe, as I mentioned earlier w/the others who also knew his secret.
-
... not to mention waking up in a coffin 175 years in the future after you've been dead (sort of). I'm amazed he showed traces of sanity at all.
He didn't initially! He was nuttier than a fruitcake when first released from the coffin. [silly]
-
Coud have done, not could have did. Sorry, it's the English major in me! [hall2_grin]
I think you meant to type "Could" above and not "Coud." No such word, right? [hall2_wink]
Nancy
-
... not to mention waking up in a coffin 175 years in the future after you've been dead (sort of). I'm amazed he showed traces of sanity at all. [hall2_tongue]
He didn't initially! He was nuttier than a fruitcake when first released from the coffin.
Initally nuts - true but not for long which, I think is one of the biggies that really made me go WHAT?!!!!. He may have been in a bit of shock at first - not to mention extremely hungry, thirsty and no doubt pretty grumpy. But, look how quickly he recovered. His ability to kind of pick right up and zip into the 20th century without much delay was actually pretty amazing. Look how fast he mastered the "horseless carriage"! (Okay, I think he had a wreck but, he gave it a shot.) Even telephones didn't throw him for a loop...which to me would have seemed like a pretty wicked little instrument from a distance of 175 years. That Collins family - the definition of hearty New England stock I'd say!
[hall_wink]
[/size]
-
Even before Carl, Barnabas showed that he was capable of harming a member of his own family. [spoiler]When he found David's knife in the mausoleum secret room, Barnabas foolishly jumped to the conclusion that David knew his secret and wanted to kill him. Had Sarah not intervened, David might have been a dead kid[/spoiler] and I know I could never forgive anyone, real or fictional, for harming a child.
-
I know I could never forgive anyone, real or fictional, for harming a child.
Even David during his "bad seed" phase? He was a pretty spooky little mansion rat and potential little murderer himself ya know. [hall2_shocked]
-
He'd have already developed strategies for getting through that stretch in the coffin. When you're trapped in a box, with no way out, for a long long time, you gave to kill off the urge to vent, and claw desperately at the lid. You have to learn discipline or it's disaster. He could then find other applications for that discipline and adaptability when he got out.
I've thought about this a lot, since it's a very good analogy in a lot of ways for my own situation. I usually think of a cage rather than a coffin.
-
He'd have already developed strategies for getting through that stretch in the coffin. When you're trapped in a box, with no way out, for a long long time, you gave to kill off the urge to vent, and claw desperately at the lid.
Correct me if I'm wrong as it's been a while since I watched 1795, but [spoiler]didn't Joshua tell Ben to put a cross INSIDE the coffin? If so, ol' Barny wouldn't really be able to move at all, right?[/spoiler]
-
EvenDavid during his "bad seed" phase? He was a pretty spooky little mansion rat and potential little murderer himself ya know. [hall2_shocked]
David was a messed up kid at the beginning no doubt, Roger hadn't been the loving father that he grew to be.
Come to think of it most of the Collinses seemed to be capable of violence:
[spoiler]Roger killed a man in a drunken state (letting Burke take the blame), Elizabeth attacked Paul with a poker (believing she killed him which she did not), Judith walled up Trask in revenge for his trying to drive her insane and committing her, Quentin was physically abusive in the beginning (particularly Magda) and wounded up strangling Jenny,
Millicent tried to kill Nathan with a knife after learning Suki was his wife rather than his sister, Gabriel murdered Randall Drew and wife Edith in cold blood, etc.[/spoiler]
If I went into ALL of Barnabas' murders or violence (whether he was good or evil) I'd be here non-stop for a few days! [hall2_grin]
-
Come to think of it most of the Collinses seemed to be capable of violence: [spoiler]Roger killed a man in a drunken state (letting Burke take the blame)[/spoiler]
But, in all fairness, [spoiler]Roger killing that man was an accident, he didn't DELIBERATELY mow him down. Now, PT Roger DID kill Angelique, Carolyn and Liz.[/spoiler]
And let's not forget [spoiler]Gabriel also killed his father Daniel, PT Gabriel tried to kill Daphne and only Bramwell's fortunate arrival saved her, Melanie tried to kill Catherine w/a knife when she was under the influence of the cursed room and Bramwell was all set to kill Morgan in that dual until Catherine told him she'd kill herself if he did. He for sure kicked Morgan's ass the first time he tried to marry Catherine, going so far as to knock him into unconsciousness. Oh, and PT Quentin (1841) went to prison for seven years for killing a man in a brawl at The Eagle[/spoiler]
-
Oh I know that [spoiler]the regular time Roger wouldn't intentionally harm anyone (that's why I said he was drunk). But there is one time I really wish he had.....after it's revealed Jason lied to Elizabeth about her killing Paul, an angry Roger retorts to Jason "You make a mockery out of everything you say, after what you put my sister through!" I really, really, REALLY would have loved to have seen Roger deck Jason.[/spoiler]
-
Barnabas had NO idea if Carl played an important role in the future of the Collins.
And how do we know that Carl's murder didn't change things? Here's a theory that I've considered: Victoria Winters was the granddaughter of Carl Collins through his illegitimate daughter Betty Hanscombe. Previously in this Forum, Vlad suggested that Vicky was Jamison's granddaughter through Betty. The following quote provides the details:
Victoria Winter's Parents
If Vicky was Carl's granddaughter, and Carl was murdered before Betty's conception, then Vicky shouldn't have existed. I can imagine the Moderators of Time - Mysterious Malefactor, Badnite, and Bomb - meeting and deliberating at length on how to deal with this problem. Finally they come up with a solution:
[spoiler]The Leviathans will dispose of Vicki.[/spoiler]
Mysterious Malefactor, persnickety as usual, argues that this does not completely solve the problem, but Badnite and Bomb overrule him because they don't want to be late for Happy Hour at the Blue Whale.
Meanwhile, I keep thinking about the issue of killing a member of your own family. This whole blood kin thing - does it really apply to a distant cousin whom you barely know? ("Murder's like sex: it's OK as long as you don't do it with your relatives.") When my third cousin once removed (literally), whom I wouldn't recognize if I saw him on the street (but then, I have no memory for faces), opened a restaurant, I took friends out to dinner there to spread the word about my cousin's restaurant. So I feel the whole family thing, but it still doesn't make sense to me.
And, finally, I wish to state that when I was a young, sensitive, and stupid teenager, Rachel's death shocked me in a way that Carl's death never did.
-
You think so? [hall2_shocked]
Would make one hell of a Jerry Springer episode, wouldn't it?
Nancy
I know it would scar my personality beyond recognition.
-
Board description for Current Talk:
Read the latest DS storyline topics or those directly related to the show itself (including past, present or future incarnations) that people are talking about!
Just thought I'd point that out before any more spoofs of other fans get posted. [hall_smiley]
-
Previously in this Forum, Vlad suggested that Vicky was Jamison's granddaughter through Betty. The following quote provides the details:
Victoria Winter's Parents
For some odd reason most of that topic is no longer displaying, though the missing posts ARE in the database. One of these days I really do have to figure out why that is...
-
Definitely some interesting points have been raised. But at the risk of being persnickety ([b003]), I'm not so sure one can say that post-curse (or rather curses) Barnabas evolved into a decent guy - at least not until perhaps the 1840/41 storyline. People who are considered to be marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill and who conform to the standards of propriety don't influence others to kill themselves as Barn would do post-1897 to Sky at the end of Leviathans (no matter how satisfying that action may have been to the audience - though personally I honestly think Sky should have been given a medal and the residents of Collinsport should have built a statue in the town square to honor the fact that Sky was the one who finally got rid of Jeb - but maybe that's just me [hall2_grin]).
Also, it's no secret that there were people who thought sending out lynch mobs and/or taking justice into their own hands was generally acceptable. But I suspect there were just as many if not more who thought those practices were wrong, and that the people who thought it was acceptable were looked down upon by civilized people - not lauded for their behavior. And there's no evidence that 1795/96 Barn thought it was generally acceptable. In fact, quite the contrary. For example, Barn was an extremely vocal advocate for Vicki being allowed to be judged innocent unless or until she was found guilty. If Barn, or anyone in the Collins family had wanted frontier justice and to settle the matter on their own, they could have killed Vicki and been done with it instead of dealing with the spectacle of a public trial. (Though, of course, they would have killed the wrong person, which is the real danger of taking justice into ones own hands - but that's an entirely different point...)
One of the most interesting things about Barn is that post-curse he exhibits an arrogance that's not much in evidence pre-curse. stefan makes an intriguing point that post-curse Barn became a complex and permanently traumatized individual. But then, given his life experience, who wouldn't have been that way? Though that being said, there's certainly a distinction between a complex/traumatized guy and good/decent guy. [hall2_wink]
-
One of the most interesting things about Barn is that post-curse he exhibits an arrogance that's not much in evidence pre-curse.
You are correct sir. 1795 Barnabas was a very sweet, sensitive, rather NAIVE young man. But after everything that happened to him, [spoiler]Josette & Jeremian running off to get married behind his back, finding out his wife was the witch responsible for all the bad things that had happened to him, including the deaths of his beloved sister, uncle, mother and fiance, not to mention being killed/cursed himself) etc...[/spoiler]he definately developed an edge to his personality and didn't easily trust others, and with good reason.
-
Oops... it's nearly all spoilers for me now. (Anything made in 1968) So to amuse myself I'll just....
[bonny_hand] [bonny_hand] [bonny_hand] [bonny_hand] [bonny_hand]
[candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2]
[candle_in_skull] [candle_in_skull]
-
Even before Carl, Barnabas showed that he was capable of harming a member of his own family. [spoiler]When he found David's knife in the mausoleum secret room, Barnabas foolishly jumped to the conclusion that David knew his secret and wanted to kill him. Had Sarah not intervened, David might have been a dead kid[/spoiler] and I know I could never forgive anyone, real or fictional, for harming a child.
That's very true and just knowing that tidbit, one would think Barnabas could easily kill another family member without a second thought. But much had changed between that time and when he went to 1897. He learned more about his powers, how he could control others without killing them. He experienced being human again, finding his humanity and was on the road of redemption. He specifically went to the past to save the family, David in particular. He had no idea if the changes he made would change history.
Someone suggested that the writers were looking for a dramatic plot twist, had something lined up to cause the story to go into another direction. Well, I admit that [spoiler]Carl's killing[/spoiler]was a catalyst for more to happen. I just wasn't pleased with it and feel it was unnecessary.[/size]
-
But, in all fairness, [spoiler]Roger killing that man was an accident, he didn't DELIBERATELY mow him down. Now, PT Roger DID kill Angelique, Carolyn and Liz.[/spoiler]
And let's not forget [spoiler]Gabriel also killed his father Daniel, PT Gabriel tried to kill Daphne and only Bramwell's fortunate arrival saved her, Melanie tried to kill Catherine w/a knife when she was under the influence of the cursed room and Bramwell was all set to kill Morgan in that dual until Catherine told him she'd kill herself if he did. He for sure kicked Morgan's ass the first time he tried to marry Catherine, going so far as to knock him into unconsciousness. Oh, and PT Quentin (1841) went to prison for seven years for killing a man in a brawl at The Eagle[/spoiler]
EGADS, what a messed up family.... throughout history! LOL
[candle_in_skull_2]
-
That's very true and just knowing that tidbit, one would think Barnabas could easily kill another family member without a second thought. But much had changed between that time and when he went to 1897. He learned more about his powers, how he could control others without killing them. He experienced being human again, finding his humanity and was on the road of redemption. He specifically went to the past to save the family, David in particular. He had no idea if the changes he made would change history.
You're echoing my thoughts exactly. I did forget however that "technically" Barnabas [spoiler]killed his Aunt Abigail, although really she had a heart attack when she saw him rise out of his coffin at dusk. So does that count as murdering a family member when really he didn't *actually* kill her, just inadvertantly caused her death from fright?[/spoiler]
-
I wonder if Barnabas would have [spoiler]wounded up killing Abigail if she hadn't died of fright. He did say he would do anything to keep from being discovered.[/spoiler]
-
That's very true and just knowing that tidbit, one would think Barnabas could easily kill another family member without a second thought. But much had changed between that time and when he went to 1897. He learned more about his powers, how he could control others without killing them. He experienced being human again, finding his humanity and was on the road of redemption. He specifically went to the past to save the family, David in particular. He had no idea if the changes he made would change history.
You're echoing my thoughts exactly. I did forget however that "technically" Barnabas [spoiler]killed his Aunt Abigail, although really she had a heart attack when she saw him rise out of his coffin at dusk. So does that count as murdering a family member when really he didn't *actually* kill her, just inadvertantly caused her death from fright?[/spoiler]
Spoiler contents within:
Yes Barnabas was an unscrupulous fiend after he became a vampire in 1795. [can't be a spoiler since EVERYONE knows that ;)] Frightening Abigail to death didn't alter the future since Barnabas was living in the present, his present. Would he have killed her by strangulation or just bitten her? He was definitely going to "stop" her from talking. He also put his hands around his father's neck, implying he was going to strangle him too, but Joshua removed Barnabas' hands. If the vampire REALLY intended to kill his father, the patriarch would not have been able to stop him. This does show that he would do anything to protect his secret which goes to illustrate how desperate he was during all the times he was and wasn't a vampire. What changed in my way of thinking was his metamorphosis from "animal basic instincts" to human again. In the present time his helping Chris and seeing the similarities between them, helped his guilty conscience prod him to redeem himself. So for the next 4 years of DS, Barnabas hopped and skipped across time trying to change the "wrongs" to "rights".
Killing Carl IMO crossed the line and was out of character... as the character was being written at the time. If he had tried killing a member of the family at the beginning, it would not have been out of character.
-
A major annoying "What?" was when in 1970 Julia discovers through her search of Quentin's portrait, that Angelique has returned and is now married to Sky. Angelique informs Julia that she doesn't want to be involved in any of the Collins' problems, that she's found a happy life with her husband and doesn't want that ruined. She pleads with Julia to allow her to live a happy life without her past deeds being revealed, and Julia agrees.
Firstly, this annoys me because if Julia is so devoted to Barnabas, and knowing all the terrible things Angelique subjected him to, highest on the list, the death of many of his family members, she would have at least cut Angelique with a few sharp remarks, then demanded why she shouldn't run and tell barnabas of Angelique's return. Instead, she placidly goes along with Angelique's requests, accept for involving her with smuggling Quentin's painting in order to uncover it from the landscape.
Barnabas does eventually learn of Angelique's existence and marriage, and he goes to her home to ask for her help.
Barnabas should realize by now that Angelique isn't to be trusted, why would he want her help with anything? It seems like he'd want to stay as far away from her as possible. Angelique tells him she doesn't want to help him in any way, that her life with Sky is very important and she doesn't want it ruined by any Collins' antics.
Barnabas, in an understanding tone says he understands her feelings completely and doesn't want to destroy her happiness with her husband.
But why was Barnabas so understanding of her, willing to keep her past deeds quiet, willing to allow her happiness when she so blatantly obliterated his life in 1795? Shouldn't he have reminded her of her selfish motives in the past, using his own knowledge to his advantage to get her to do what he wanted? He was just so docile about the entire thing, as though nothing harsh had ever been between them! [hall_huh]
Through Barnabas's stubborn insistence she promises to conceal Carolyn, but only for a short time. Then she returns to her old ways, threatening him with her formidable powers if he doesn't uphold his end of the bargain, that helping him won't cause her any troubles with Sky. Yet again he is kind in the face of her threats instead of pointing out that he has already been subjected to her powers time and again, he doesn't need to be reminded of her capabilities. IMHO, he should have displayed a little bitterness at her request for happiness when she so coldly and calculatingly denied it to him. [hall_huh]
Yet another moment: After returning from 1995, Barnabas and Julia inform Quentin of his possible future fate, explaining of his madness in the face of family tragedy, and that he will become very attached to the ghost of a woman named Daphne. Fully aware of what is to come, Daphne appears to Quentin, and instead of sending her away, or at the very least protesting her presence with him, he welcomes her, simply because she's a beautiful woman. If knowledge is power, then he didn't use what he knew to avoid a fate he knew was to come. He continues to be involved with Daphne, all the while knowing the dangers, but obviously he doesn't care about his sanity or the children if he is willing to set this all aside for the sake of beauty.
Yet another: During the dream curse when Willie has the dream and is then frantic to tell it to Carolyn, instead of feeling sympathetic towards him, Barnabas and Julia tell him to stop complaining about the dream and search for Adam. Julia has experienced the dream, she knows the terrifying feelings it provokes in the person who has had the dream, so now why is she so callously pushing aside Willie's emotions as if they don't matter? Poor Willie!
-
Speaking of the dream curse why didn't [spoiler]Cassandra uses her powers to force Vicki to tell the dream curse to Barnabas, especially once she realized Vicki wasn't gonna tell the dream of her own free will? Certainly she could have done that without Nicholas' help....[/spoiler] [hall2_rolleyes]
-
A major annoying "What?" was when in 1970 Julia discovers through her search of Quentin's portrait, that Angelique has returned and is now married to Sky. Angelique informs Julia that she doesn't want to be involved in any of the Collins' problems, that she's found a happy life with her husband and doesn't want that ruined. She pleads with Julia to allow her to live a happy life without her past deeds being revealed, and Julia agrees.
I like to think that although Julia probably wants to cold-cock the bitch, she decides it's best NOT to piss her off if it means she'll never bother Barnabas and his family again. Like she's appeasing Angelique to keep her out of their lives. I'd do the same thing, why stir up a hornets nest?
Barnabas does eventually learn of Angelique's existence and marriage, and he goes to her home to ask for her help. Barnabas should realize by now that Angelique isn't to be trusted, why would he want her help with anything? It seems like he'd want to stay as far away from her as possible. Angelique tells him she doesn't want to help him in any way, that her life with Sky is very important and she doesn't want it ruined by any Collins' antics. Barnabas, in an understanding tone says he understands her feelings completely and doesn't want to destroy her happiness with her husband. But why was Barnabas so understanding of her, willing to keep her past deeds quiet, willing to allow her happiness when she so blatantly obliterated his life in 1795?
See above, same reason.
Yet another moment: After returning from 1995, Barnabas and Julia inform Quentin of his possible future fate, explaining of his madness in the face of family tragedy, and that he will become very attached to the ghost of a woman named Daphne. Fully aware of what is to come, Daphne appears to Quentin, and instead of sending her away, or at the very least protesting her presence with him, he welcomes her, simply because she's a beautiful woman. If knowledge is power, then he didn't use what he knew to avoid a fate he knew was to come. He continues to be involved with Daphne, all the while knowing the dangers, but obviously he doesn't care about his sanity or the children if he is willing to set this all aside for the sake of beauty.
If I'm not mistaken, Quentin was under her power and couldn't help himself, regardless of what he knew about Daphne and his future because of her.
Yet another: During the dream curse when Willie has the dream and is then frantic to tell it to Carolyn, instead of feeling sympathetic towards him, Barnabas and Julia tell him to stop complaining about the dream and search for Adam. Julia has experienced the dream, she knows the terrifying feelings it provokes in the person who has had the dream, so now why is she so callously pushing aside Willie's emotions as if they don't matter? Poor Willie!
This pissed me off too as Julia was rather selfish during this period about whether or not Willie should further the dream. Never mind that SHE had no problem unloading herself of the dream to save HER sanity. Rather hypocritical IMHO! This was the only time I was pissed at something Julia did.
-
Angelique and Barnabas seemed to develop a truce midway through 1897, as her character seemd to develop a little.
[spoiler]she even helped Julia cure Barnabas in 1897 at his request.[/spoiler]
By Leviathan, she seems to have made some sort of peace with Barnabas and moved on.
[spoiler]she was in shock and upset that Barnabas was made into a vampire again by Jeb and she did want to kill Jeb for what he had caused her[/spoiler]
-
Like many here, I agree there was sometimes some very sloppy writing in the series. However, I also believe some folks are complaining about things being "out of character" when in fact they are very much the opposite.
Barnabas Collins was a complex young man in 1795. All that gentleness and devotion was the surface, but even as a human being he had a awesome temper. Let us also not forget he had an affair with his fiancee's personal maid! While he clearly loved, even adored Josette the simple fact was Angelique always got under his skin, always seemed to elicit a powerful emotional--and physical--reaction in him.
When he became a vampire, Barnabas underwent a change. He often was vicious. His first act was to taunt Angelique, making sure she was afraid before he strangled her. Many recent vampire tales--from Bram Stoker's Dracula to Buffy--pretty much make the case that vampires are a case of demonic possession. Methinks you could make that case with Dark Shadows as well. Or in Freudian terms, a vampire's Id becomes very very powerful at the expense of their ego. Barnabas did terrible things as a vampire, many of them at least in theory unnecessary. Yet he wasn't without a conscience, so he also got the trauma of personal guilt on top of everything else that happened (which all came down, btw, to his having cheated on a woman--or two women, depending on how you look at it).
I interpret Barnabas as having eventually entered into a kind of trance while chained in the coffin, spending very many decades simply reaching out with his semi-conscious mind to summon someone to release him. Hence the strange "feeling" around the mausoleum. When he did emerge, quite frankly he was a nutter. He in every way he could manage refused to live in the 20th century--refusing to have electricity installed in the Old House, trying to turn a waitress into Josette, etc.
These are not rational things to do.
But when he was cured, Barnabas also began to regain his sanity, along with a couple of boatloads of guilt. His rather hystrionic personality did not help with that--in simple terms, Barnabas is and always was something of a drama queen. If there was a dramatic gesture to be made, even if it made little sense, he was at the very least tempted to do it!
Mind you, he also became a much darker person every single time (twice, wasn't it?) he became a vampire. Or (more often) he travelled back in time into his vampiric body--when he was demonstrably more violent and reckless.
Specifically, I think his emotional instability and the inherent violence of his undead nature do much to explain the murder of Carl.
Vis-a-vis Angelique, I've always felt that Barnabas to some extent--and with some justification--blamed himself for her actions. More, he always had strong feelings for her, as she did for him (although both tried to pull away at one time or another). Given that they both changed, both matured, both had a great deal of guilt with which to live and each ended up sacrificing so much--I believed Barnabas could indeed have fallen back in love with Angelique. While I don't think that makes her the "only woman" he ever loved, I totally and absolutely believe Barnabas would say something like that (see Drama Queen comment above).
-
Welcome to the forum, Zahir! [hall2_smiley]
What you said makes a lot of sense (though I still can't quite believe Barnabas deciding he LOVED Angelique....forgive her yes, love her, sorry, I just can't buy it).
Though I always believed Barnabas was a bit more guilt-stricken than Angelique. Angelique could use and abuse people and toss them away and not feel a bit guilty about it. It wasn't until we see her in the Leviathans do we see a more mature Angelique who just wants to lead a normal life, powerless and all. (Of course [spoiler]that came to an end when she found out her husband was buddies with Nicholas Blair and a Leviathan).[/spoiler]
-
Welcome, Zahir!
[hall_smiley]
-
A major annoying "What?" was when in 1970 Julia discovers through her search of Quentin's portrait, that Angelique has returned and is now married to Sky. Angelique informs Julia that she doesn't want to be involved in any of the Collins' problems, that she's found a happy life with her husband and doesn't want that ruined. She pleads with Julia to allow her to live a happy life without her past deeds being revealed, and Julia agrees.
Firstly, this annoys me because if Julia is so devoted to Barnabas, and knowing all the terrible things Angelique subjected him to, highest on the list, the death of many of his family members, she would have at least cut Angelique with a few sharp remarks, then demanded why she shouldn't run and tell barnabas of Angelique's return. Instead, she placidly goes along with Angelique's requests, accept for involving her with smuggling Quentin's painting in order to uncover it from the landscape.
Barnabas does eventually learn of Angelique's existence and marriage, and he goes to her home to ask for her help.
Barnabas should realize by now that Angelique isn't to be trusted, why would he want her help with anything? It seems like he'd want to stay as far away from her as possible. Angelique tells him she doesn't want to help him in any way, that her life with Sky is very important and she doesn't want it ruined by any Collins' antics.
Barnabas, in an understanding tone says he understands her feelings completely and doesn't want to destroy her happiness with her husband.
But why was Barnabas so understanding of her, willing to keep her past deeds quiet, willing to allow her happiness when she so blatantly obliterated his life in 1795? Shouldn't he have reminded her of her selfish motives in the past, using his own knowledge to his advantage to get her to do what he wanted? He was just so docile about the entire thing, as though nothing harsh had ever been between them!
You make valid points, but as has been mentioned, Angelique had helped Barnabas and Julia in 1897 with [spoiler]Barnabas' cure[/spoiler]and [spoiler]Ang had continued the treatments after Julia had returned to the present.[/spoiler]Julia and Ang had shared what could be considered some friendly scenes in 1897 and, despite her complaints, Ang had ultimately helped Barn out with several predicaments. Julia was no doubt still grateful for the help. And when it comes to Barn, his relationship with Ang was nothing if not classic love/hate - one minute they're despising each other, the next they're coconspirators/allies (which is but one of the reasons why I don't think the way things evolve and work out between Ang and Barn in 1840/41 is quite so out of left field as some other fans do).
Yet another moment: After returning from 1995, Barnabas and Julia inform Quentin of his possible future fate, explaining of his madness in the face of family tragedy, and that he will become very attached to the ghost of a woman named Daphne. Fully aware of what is to come, Daphne appears to Quentin, and instead of sending her away, or at the very least protesting her presence with him, he welcomes her, simply because she's a beautiful woman. If knowledge is power, then he didn't use what he knew to avoid a fate he knew was to come. He continues to be involved with Daphne, all the while knowing the dangers, but obviously he doesn't care about his sanity or the children if he is willing to set this all aside for the sake of beauty.
Well, one thing that Quentin and Barnabas definitely share in common is that that they rarely think with the head on their shoulders. [hall2_wink] [hall2_rolleyes] Is that stupid behavior that can all too often get a man in trouble? Yes. But not to be sexist, maybe it takes another male to fully understand though not necessarily forgive and/or condone exactly how that works because at one time or another we've all been there, done that. [hall2_undecided] [hall2_embarrassed]
-
However, I also believe some folks are complaining about things being "out of character" when in fact they are very much the opposite.
I couldn't agree more.
Barnabas is and always was something of a drama queen. If there was a dramatic gesture to be made, even if it made little sense, he was at the very least tempted to do it!
Does that perception ever hit the nail on the head! It sums Barnabas up to a T. [thumb] And frequently Barn couldn't be talked out of making the gesture. Barn was often his own worst enemy.
Vis-a-vis Angelique, I've always felt that Barnabas to some extent--and with some justification--blamed himself for her actions. More, he always had strong feelings for her, as she did for him (although both tried to pull away at one time or another). Given that they both changed, both matured, both had a great deal of guilt with which to live and each ended up sacrificing so much--I believed Barnabas could indeed have fallen back in love with Angelique. While I don't think that makes her the "only woman" he ever loved, I totally and absolutely believe Barnabas would say something like that (see Drama Queen comment above).
Exactly!
And BTW, welcome to the forum. [hall2_smiley]
-
Vis-a-vis Angelique, I've always felt that Barnabas to some extent--and with some justification--blamed himself for her actions. More, he always had strong feelings for her, as she did for him (although both tried to pull away at one time or another). Given that they both changed, both matured, both had a great deal of guilt with which to live and each ended up sacrificing so much--I believed Barnabas could indeed have fallen back in love with Angelique. While I don't think that makes her the "only woman" he ever loved, I totally and absolutely believe Barnabas would say something like that (see Drama Queen comment above).
um .. not sure why I'm cutting in here but. OK, here's my take on this statement and BTW excellent post and insightful. I agree that there was sexual and emotional chemistry between Angelique and Barnabas and that he did blame himself for her actions. What a disaster it all turned out to be but how could this 23 year old spoiled elegant highly emotional brat (Barnabas) have guessed that Angelique was a witch; capable of outright cold-blooded murder of a child. The point is that he could not have. Barnabas was guilty of indescreet and insensitive conduct towards both Angelique and Josette. I think we all know the drill blah blah .. Barnabas and Josette were not engaged or even romantically involved at the time Barnabas had his fling with her maid, but he was interested in Josette, probably in love with her, so it was a deed of incredible stupidity and lust. One could argue that it was their strong chemistry and I agree that had lots to do with it, but, let us not also forget who we're talking about here - a woman who coldly, without much conscience, nearly wiped out an entire family and as responsible for the murders Barnabas subsequently committed as a vampire as he was, perhaps more. I'd be curious as to how it all happened between them in Martinique as Angelique does have a pattern of manipulative behavior, who boldly stated to Ben S. that she frequently went after Josette's suitors. But, this doesn't excuse Barnie's behavior and, again, guessing by the storyline, he did not suspect what Angelique was and how she operated.
One could also argue that Barnabas truly loved Angelique but wouldn't have taken her seriously as a wife because she was of the "lower orders" as opposed to the refined and wealthy Josette. In those days people married within their social structure. This could be true but there is more to it than just the distribution of weath. It was also a connection by upbringing, class, interests and manners. This kind of marrying within class structure still occurs today. I don't find it strange at all Barnabas would feel a "connnection" to Josette in that sense and initially not feel as connected to Angelique. However, I feel Barnabas would have preferred Josette had she been poorer than she was. Despite her youth and delicacy, she was essentially a gentle, courageous and loyal person who, confused and baffled by the events that happened and the spells put upon her, stayed loyal to Barnabas even after death and when she suspected and when events pointed to a gruesome death.
In response to the both of them maturing. I agree that, according the the show's events, both characters did mature as monsters can mature, I guess. I still find it incredible that Barnabas could ever forgive someone responsible for the agony he had endured for centuries, the murders he committed in the name of feminine vanity. How could his actions to Angelique EVER confine him to those horrors. If he did forgive her it's a sick joke, an appalling case of stockholm syndrome that apparently much of the audience experienced as well, jugding by the tolerant and even excited responses Angelique inspires.
-
Depicting Barnabas as a 'drama queen' seems excessive and harsh. I'm not sure there is such a thing anyway. And Barnabas was notable for his egalitarianism, treating Ben well, and teaching him to read. A bit of arrogance might still be there because of his class, but a lot of that comes when you become a vampire and have to live by using people, I think.
-
Depicting Barnabas as a 'drama queen' seems excessive and harsh. I'm not sure there is such a thing anyway. And Barnabas was notable for his egalitarianism, treating Ben well, and teaching him to read. A bit of arrogance might still be there because of his class, but a lot of that comes when you become a vampire and have to live by using people, I think.
ITA Magnus. Barnabas wasn't your typical 'idle rich' boy. Ben even says to him at one point in 1795 [spoiler]when Angelique sends the skull to Josette and Ben says it may have come from someone in town who is jealous of Joshua's success, then adds, "They don't know you're different Mr. Barnabas."[/spoiler] suggesting that Ben can't believe that if ppl knew how nice Barnabas was they wouldn't have sent what they sent to CW.
-
even as a human being he had a awesome temper.
I'm not so sure about this. The only evidence I can remember is
[spoiler]Barnabas challenging Jeremiah to a duel[/spoiler]
(I'm not sure if a spoiler warning is needed on something so well-known, but better safe than sorry.)
On that he had had intense provocation, and his response was one with which everybody in that time would have been familiar. And he'd had days and days to worry about the whole business and let it build up inside him before being presented with the actual, shocking fact.
trying to turn a waitress into Josette
Gosh, I'm slow. Years and years, and finally a chance remark causes light to dawn on Marblehead - i.e. I made the connection to one of my favorite poems, Non Sum Qualis Eram Bonae Sub Regno Cynarae by Ernest Dowson. Non sum etc. translates to "I am not what I was under the reign of the good Cynara". The poet talks about drinking and womanizing all over the place to try to forget Cynara, but none of it was any good - each verse ends with "I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion." I read that the Dowson's inspiration for Cynara was a waitress at a cheap diner. Maggie in her early days.
-
Depicting Barnabas as a 'drama queen' seems excessive and harsh.
If one goes back and reads Zahir's post, one will note that he says Barnabas was "something of a drama queen," meaning he wasn't necessary a full fledged example but someone who exhibited drama queenish tendancies - and Zahir equated that behavior with Barn's need to make dramatic gestures. It's hard to imagine that almost anyone could argue against that because, let's face it, whenever any real and/or imagined crisis cropped up, Barn was the first to react, if not actually overreact (can one say killing Carl rather than choosing some other alternative? - initially wanting to kill David without even being sure that David even really knew anything? - wanting to kill Maggie rather than trust that Dr. Hoffman had submerged her memories? - the list goes on and on...) and very often people like Ben, Willie and Julia had to pull every argument out of the book to try to calm Barn down and make him see reason. And also, let's face it, more often than not, they failed. However...
And Barnabas was notable for his egalitarianism, treating Ben well, and teaching him to read.
...a belief in human equality and a desire to remove inequality from society would in no way preclude someone from also having drama queenish tendencies which might often blind one to the bigger picture and the repercussions of acting rashly. [hall2_smiley]
-
Thank you, Mysterious Benefactor.
My whole point is that genuine human characters are not always logical, nor do they only show one set of tendencies. Barnabas was capable of vicious rage, although he also often (even usually) a kind and patient man who preferred to see the best in others. He was a romantic, even gallant figure--who had an affair with is his fiancee's maid, then treated her very badly afterwards (at least, had a former lover of mine treated me like that I'd've been extremely hurt and upset). He could be cool, smart and calculating--yet he also displayed recklessness time after time. Repressed and formal, he was given to flights of melodrama.
Frankly, that kind of complexity is a lot of what made him seem real. That and Jonathan Frid's decision to play him (to quote the actor) "like Hamlet."
-
Barn was the first to react, if not actually overreact (can one say killing Carl rather than choosing some other alternative? - initially wanting to kill David without even being sure that David even really knew anything? - wanting to kill Maggie rather than trust that Dr. Hoffman had submerged her memories? - the list goes on and on...)
Those fall under 'paranoia' more so than being 'overdramatic' or a 'drama queen' to me.
-
Well, a whole set of different feelings can often spark over-reactive/over-dramatic behavior, paranoia certainly being one of them. [hall2_wink]
-
Well ever since Angelique cursed him, Barnabas all throughout the show struggled between good and evil. I always believed he wanted to be a better person especially once he [spoiler]became human again.[/spoiler]At times he really could be a warm, compassionate human being, other times he could be so cold and murderous.
From the moment he first became a vampire, Barnabas was a very screwed-up person. I can't help but pity the guy even when I don't agree with some of the things he does.
-
I'm not so sure about this. The only evidence I can remember is
[spoiler]Barnabas challenging Jeremiah to a duel[/spoiler]
(I'm not sure if a spoiler warning is needed on something so well-known, but better safe than sorry.)
On that he had had intense provocation, and his response was one with which everybody in that time would have been familiar. And he'd had days and days to worry about the whole business and let it build up inside him before being presented with the actual, shocking fact.
Can't get any more stressful than that. He also worshipped both Jeremiah and Josette. How painful it must have been for him. Great scene and very human, believable and very understandable.
trying to turn a waitress into Josette
Gosh, I'm slow. Years and years, and finally a chance remark causes light to dawn on Marblehead - i.e. I made the connection to one of my favorite poems, Non Sum Qualis Eram Bonae Sub Regno Cynarae by Ernest Dowson. Non sum etc. translates to "I am not what I was under the reign of the good Cynara". The poet talks about drinking and womanizing all over the place to try to forget Cynara, but none of it was any good - each verse ends with "I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion." I read that the Dowson's inspiration for Cynara was a waitress at a cheap diner. Maggie in her early days.
I love this blurb and quote and your comparison to Maggie in her "early days" . Thank you!
-
Barn was the first to react, if not actually overreact (can one say killing Carl rather than choosing some other alternative? - initially wanting to kill David without even being sure that David even really knew anything? - wanting to kill Maggie rather than trust that Dr. Hoffman had submerged her memories? - the list goes on and on...)
Those fall under 'paranoia' more so than being 'overdramatic' or a 'drama queen' to me.
Exactly. And "drama queen" may be more of a characterization made by an observer of a person, than anything real existing within that person. I always wonder when I hear that expression whether there's real suffering going on for that person, which is being dismissed by the observer. Real life has to have a certain amount of genuine, not feigned drama to it, because it's life. When we suffer, we act as if it matters.
Maybe I just haven't met these "drama queens"--- and to put it mildly, I don't get out much. So maybe I'm just lucky. But I also consider it possible that whenever I mention my medical problems someplace, even just a little bit, even obliquely, someone somewhere is saying "drama queen" or some equivalent, in her/his head. That's just my take on the world, from my experiences. I don't see any sign of that yet in people on this board. I'm speaking in general.
This is a great big tangent, sorry.
Egalitarianism and the "drama queen" thing aren't mutually exclusive....I think I was responding to a completely separate point, there. But come to think of it, they probably wouldn't co-exist.,, unless someone were militantly egalitarian to "prove" something, like people who join Communist and Socialist parties, and repeat slogans mindlessly, to feel superior, I think.
-
I don't think Barnabas was a drama queen at all. If he was a drama queen, then Julia was definitely his drama king! Everyone: Hands blocking mouths and gasp now! One.......two.......THREE!!! [female_skull]
-
Oh yeah--Julia was at least a much a drama king/queen as Barnabas. Easily. Probably more. No, definitely more. Way more. Yup.
-
I agree with Magnus! IMHO, we live in a society that discourages open suffering such as crying or fear. publicly people are expected to keep their emotions to themselves. Now I realize this isn't true for everyone everywhere, but I've heard parents tell their children not to cry when they get hurt, and adults whenever they show sadness often apologize for the natural reaction of tears. The message is, suffering is to be borne in private among family and very close friends, and anything other than this behavior anywhere else is generally frowned upon. If people don't conform to this unspoken rule of society, they're labeled dramatic or seeking attention.
that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of compassionate people, quite the contrary, but I'm simply speaking of the general public and everyday life. I'm not saying there aren't people who behave in a flamboyant and overreactive manner at times, for there definitely are those types of people as well.
Sorry this got a bit OT, I just thought I would add my opinion to the discussion, not that it's worth much...
Another "What?" moment for me: After Jeremiah's death, Angelique summons him back as a ghost. He proceeds to haunt her, obviously realizing what she is, and not only does he haunt her, but he goes to Barnabas and accuses him of stealing Josette from him and that he wants her back.
But Jeremiah never truly loved Josette when he was alive, and you would think upon his death, Angelique would no longer have power over him. He should have then told Barnabas of her malicious intent and the motives behind his and Josette's sudden ill-fated marriage.
-
Thanks very much for backing me up on that, Sunny! I tend to feel as if I'm out there all on my own, with a lot of the things I seem to be observing in life, and in people.
Many Doctor Who fans will complain about any "companion" (co-star, generally female) who screams or shows fear even once. With one of them, the character was branded "just another screaming companion" when she only screamed once in her entire year on the program. When I hear things like that, I want to pick up the critic out of his comfy easy chair in front of the TV, and plop him down into a life-threatening situation for a few minutes, to get a different perspective.
Jeremiah did get his brains and priorities scrambled a bit after death, didn't he?
-
I'm getting the feeling that some have the impression that saying Barnabas is "something of a drama queen" is a bad thing or some sort of a putdown. That's most certainly not how I've meant it, and it's not a bad thing. Well, for him I suppose it can be at times whenever he has to live with and/or deal with the aftermath of his rash decisions. But in terms of story, it's far from a bad thing. In fact, it's one of the the things that make Barnabas so fascinating and DS such fun to watch. And I think both Zahir and I have tried to make sincere efforts to make that clear.
Interestingly, I came across two different Darma Queen surveys online and I've posted a topic about them over on the current Calendar Events / Announcements board. Hopefully people will take the surveys and share their results. Some of the questions in the surveys are actually a hoot and a half! [hall2_grin]
-
I've been in theatre most of my life, and the concept of a "drama queen" is very familiar to me. I'm a little bit of one myself. Such folks don't simply react to an event, or to trauma, but take up a pose and/or attitude for dramatic effect. Drama Queens come in all ranges and styles--from those who simply have loads of flair to their lives, to those to turn every typo into a scene from Tennessee Williams (I used to work for one of those).
But that is of course a different thing from the whole idolization of stoicism and distrust of emotion we've inheirited from the Victorian Age. That, while sometimes useful, is often unhealthy. And I firmly believe that in our current age it is coupled with somthing much, much worse--a sense of isolation stemming from a lack of process and shared ritual in our lives. I think as a people we seem to be losing our ability to empathize. We focus so much on being ourselves as individuals we sometimes lose track of ourselves as members of a family, a community, a nation, a species, etc. And too often we are amazingly impatient with others' troubles while demanding absolute understanding and forgiveness for our own. This frankly has come to permeate, among other things, politics as well as personal relationships.
Ours is a strange, neurotic time.
-
Can't argue with that. I'm glad I'm not the only one putting it in strong terms. I wouldn't put blame on a lack of shared rituals, though... a lot of people find ritual empty and hollow, something just sort of obligatory. I'm sure there's more to say but I have to knock of for tonight/today.
-
those to turn every typo into a scene from Tennessee Williams (I used to work for one of those).
Hey, I currently DO work for one of those! Jesus I hate that woman!!! [hall2_rolleyes]
-
I'm glad I'm not the only one putting it in strong terms.
A possible reason that you and I seem to disagree over the Barnabas/drama queen issue would seem to be that we're coming to it from opposing viewpoints, There's a world of difference between someone who experiences and/or has very real problems and issues but who's told that they're imaginary and insignificant and, thus, they're accused of being a drama queen and someone whose behavior is drama queenish because they often jump to the worst possible scenario based on little or no concrete info and/or they decide upon the most drastic course of action when a far less drastic alternative exists and might prove to be far more effective. The former is tragic and there's absolutely no excuse for anyone to treat someone that way. However, the latter truly is over-dramatizing a situation and can be completely avoidable. Barn as drama queen tends to fall into the latter category. Though as I said, it certainly can propel the DS storylines into dramatic and enjoyable directions that they would otherwise never go into if Barn always behaved rationally. Frankly, if Barn's behavior was always rational, the storylines involving him would be exceedingly dull. [hall2_smiley]
-
The character's most famous line was variations on "You have BETRAYED me!!" and people don't think he was a drama queen???
*shrugs* chacun a son gout!
G.
-
No. I think he was a paranoid vampire. If I were a vampire, I'd probably be paranoid, too. In that situation, he probably figured he could never be too careful. And with what he was hiding, that makes sense - if one person found out that could've been the end of him.
-
I agree Barnabas was very paranoid and and too overdramatic at times but considering all the hell he went through I think calling him a drama queen is going a bit too far. Before the curse he was a very stable man, after the curse he was anything but. When he became human again he was able to recapture some of his sanity if not all.
-
No. I think he was a paranoid vampire.
Then how does one explain Barnabas' penchant to over-dramatize when he wasn't a vampire? [hall2_wink] Or is one to assume that he was simply generally paranoid? [hall2_smiley]
Though as I said, paranoia and drama queenish tendencies can and often do go hand in hand. I mean, just look at some of the situations presented in the tests I've posted the links to. For example, seeing someone you're dating with a person of the opposite sex and immediately assuming they're having a sexual relationship with that other person behind your back? [wink2]
-
I've been in theatre most of my life, and the concept of a "drama queen" is very familiar to me. I'm a little bit of one myself. Such folks don't simply react to an event, or to trauma, but take up a pose and/or attitude for dramatic effect. Drama Queens come in all ranges and styles--from those who simply have loads of flair to their lives, to those to turn every typo into a scene from Tennessee Williams (I used to work for one of those).
But that is of course a different thing from the whole idolization of stoicism and distrust of emotion we've inheirited from the Victorian Age. That, while sometimes useful, is often unhealthy. And I firmly believe that in our current age it is coupled with somthing much, much worse--a sense of isolation stemming from a lack of process and shared ritual in our lives. I think as a people we seem to be losing our ability to empathize. We focus so much on being ourselves as individuals we sometimes lose track of ourselves as members of a family, a community, a nation, a species, etc. And too often we are amazingly impatient with others' troubles while demanding absolute understanding and forgiveness for our own. This frankly has come to permeate, among other things, politics as well as personal relationships.
Ours is a strange, neurotic time.
I found your post most interesting and insightful. Thanks for sharing your observations. [hall_smiley] [hall_cool]
-
I'm glad I'm not the only one putting it in strong terms.
A possible reason that you and I seem to disagree over the Barnabas/drama queen issue would seem to be that we're coming to it from opposing viewpoints, There's a world of difference between someone who experiences and/or has very real problems and issues but who's told that they're imaginary and insignificant and, thus, they're accused of being a drama queen and someone whose behavior is drama queenish because they often jump to the worst possible scenario based on little or no concrete info and/or they decide upon the most drastic course of action when a far less drastic alternative exists and might prove to be far more effective. The former is tragic and there's absolutely no excuse for anyone to treat someone that way. However, the latter truly is over-dramatizing a situation and can be completely avoidable. Barn as drama queen tends to fall into the latter category. Though as I said, it certainly can propel the DS storylines into dramatic and enjoyable directions that they would otherwise never go into if Barn always behaved rationally. Frankly, if Barn's behavior was always rational, the storylines involving him would be exceedingly dull.
Folks, even Frid thought Barnabas was a drama queen! [hall2_wink]
-
Can't argue with that. I'm glad I'm not the only one putting it in strong terms. I wouldn't put blame on a lack of shared rituals, though... a lot of people find ritual empty and hollow, something just sort of obligatory. I'm sure there's more to say but I have to knock of for tonight/today.
Ritual can be meaningful or not. But one of the most meaningful things about some rituals is simply that they are shared. Such are often the building blocks of our mutuality, of our recognition that that guy over there is "one of us" even if we have little in common with him.
This can of course be taken too far, but what can't?
Anyway, I repeat my earlier point--that much of what people complain about in terms of characterization is complexity.
But some things that make no sense to me...
* How come Barnabas never seemed to need to drink blood after he returned from 1995? Weeks and weeks went by, yet not one single victim.
* If everyone who dies from the bite of a vampire becomes a vampire, shouldn't we be up to our eyebrows in the pesky things?
* Why would the Collins family hire a waitress to be governess?
* Exactly what was Julia Hoffman's specialty? She seemed to be some kind of psychiatrist, but also a hemotologist. That is a strange combo. Then there was the strange way she'd move people without first determining the extent of their injuries. Doesn't every Cub Scout handbook warn against doing that?
* What was it about Collinwood that attracted so much supernatural stuff?
-
Ritual can be meaningful or not. But one of the most meaningful things about some rituals is simply that they are shared. Such are often the building blocks of our mutuality, of our recognition that that guy over there is "one of us" even if we have little in common with him.
This can of course be taken too far, but what can't?
Anyway, I repeat my earlier point--that much of what people complain about in terms of characterization is complexity.
But some things that make no sense to me...
* How come Barnabas never seemed to need to drink blood after he returned from 1995? Weeks and weeks went by, yet not one single victim.
* If everyone who dies from the bite of a vampire becomes a vampire, shouldn't we be up to our eyebrows in the pesky things?
* Why would the Collins family hire a waitress to be governess?
* Exactly what was Julia Hoffman's specialty? She seemed to be some kind of psychiatrist, but also a hemotologist. That is a strange combo. Then there was the strange way she'd move people without first determining the extent of their injuries. Doesn't every Cub Scout handbook warn against doing that?
* What was it about Collinwood that attracted so much supernatural stuff?
Speaking of rituals - I had to read Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" for my graduate studies (which I'm sure Zahir has read) about how the lack of rituals in today's society has affected us and our youth. He focuses mostly on shared actions and a sense (like even the family eating at a dinner table and talking of current events) of ritualistic authority - such as a Judge - that people need to maintain a sense of purpose and a subconscious need for authority. I realize that since the 60's such stuff appears nonsense, and with our present quests for self-fulfillment and freedom - "rituals" seems like an alien thing. "The Power of Myth" makes for great reading and is quite persuasive that humans have an integrated need for ritual and INTELLIGENT BALANCED authority (not like Osama or Hitler) but the following they had makes you wonder.
Anyway, the inconsistencies you point out in DS are standard fare. There are sooo many you'll start to loose interest if you let them bother you too much. The lack of a vampire following for Barnabas is a glaring omission. Considering other vampire tales such as Stephen King's "Salem's Lot", the vamp there practically turned the whole town vampire within weeks. I still huff and fuss that in 1795 Josette could never figure out Angelique was creating havoc behind her back. Probably best not to forget that DS is still just a soap opera, albeit a gothic one, where the writers frequently took the easy way out to keep it all going.
-
Ritual is something you do because you're used to doing it. Any good ritual would have to win its right to exist through being of value on its own. The world is full of plenty of bad ritual. Maybe it would help me if certain shared activities were thought of as something you do because you know it helps everyone stay together.... maybe I'm getting hung up on the word "ritual", but for a fairly good reason, possibly.
It's common now to characterize social changes in the 60s as self-indulgent, but there were a lot of WW2 era parents with very small souls then, who drove their kids away from wanting to sit at the dinner table with them. My father for one.
The Campbell idea of the family having a subconscious need for an authority figure... is that with the wife as part of the crowd looking up to the "judge"? Did he say it was a good thing? Bringing up kids right can't depend on "I say so" (then it falls apart, or you raise automatons), but demonstrating you're right by being a just person. Needing an authority figure is something holding the human race back.
All this connects with DS somehow. There, back on topic. I'm good, aren't I?
-
Folks, even Frid thought Barnabas was a drama queen! [hall2_wink]
Really? Well far be it from me to disagree with my favorite actor on the show.... [hall2_wink]
-
It isn't about going through the motions, but about rituals that ultimately have meaning. Rituals can be empty, yes. But they can also offer a shape and a rhythm to parts of our lives.
As for "authority figures" Campbell wasn't talking about dictators, nor was he disparaging women as valuable human beings. But look at nations that have constitutional monarchs. The monarch serves as a unifying force that most folks find comforting to some degree--regardless of whether they like any specific individual member of the royal family. Hence the great popularity of Prince William, of the late Queen Mum and of Princess Diana herself. We tend to think of the British royals too much when we think of royalty anyway. The Danish, Dutch and Spanish royal famiies are frankly better models.
Not everyone needs such an authority figure. But lots of people do feel such a need, and that is not evidence of something being "wrong" with them.
One set of rituals that we've pretty much lost are rites of passage. Individuals often go through such, but many don't and the site of middle-aged men still behaving in fundamental ways like teenagers is frankly disturbing. No less disturbing is the lack of commonality between those who have in some sense "graduated" to adulthood on an emotional and psychological level. We no longer have some kind of difficult trial of endurance that everyone goes through, hence everyone can rightly call a "shared experience." Adulthood is simply a matter of breathing long enough. Adults and children wear the same clothes, wear their hair the same way, retain identical names regardless of age or status (save women who take their husband's family name--which is something else). In the span of one second, a person in our society goes from totally without any real responsibility including being unable to hold a full-time job or be charged with a serious crime, to full responsibility and the right to have children, declare bankruptcy and be put to death.
I don't believe this is a good thing. Neither am I claiming that a return to the past makes very much sense either. Nor can any of this be imposed from above. To work, to be genuine, it must arise and be embraced from below. And we're a long, long, long way from even starting to do that.
There are times I totally sympathize with Barnabas, preferring the 18th century to the 20th. Or the 21st!
-
My concept of a drama queen is someone who lives off of drama to the point where they will create it for themselves in order to have something going on . . . to make something out of nothing. I don't want to confuse a drama queen with someone who makes bad decisions out of temper which is the case with Barnabas in my opinion. Jonathan Frid has repeatedly referred to Dark Shadows as being "operatic" but never identified Barnabas as someone who was looking to create drama or being a drama queen. There was plenty of drama and equally plenty of rash decisions that complicated matters on the show.
By its very nature, soap operas are operatic; heightened stakes further heightened by stupid and/or irrational decisions and usually repeating the same dumb mistake over and over again. I don't think it is really possible to single out any one character on DS who was more of a drama queen as least in my definition of the term with the exception of Carolyn. I thought the early Carolyn was a drama queen if ever one existed on DS.
Nancy
-
My concept of a drama queen is someone who lives off of drama to the point where they will create it for themselves in order to have something going on . . . to make something out of nothing.
The classic definition of drama queen is "someone who is melodramatic" or "an overly dramatic person" - though someone who fits that bill could most certainly resort to creating drama/melodrama for themselves if there's a lack of real drama/melodrama already in their lives to over-dramatize. [hall2_smiley]
By its very nature, soap operas are operatic; heightened stakes further heightened by stupid and/or irrational decisions and usually repeating the same dumb mistake over and over again. I don't think it is really possible to single out any one character on DS who was more of a drama queen as least in my definition of the term with the exception of Carolyn. I thought the early Carolyn was a drama queen if ever one existed on DS.
Well, there is no shortage of drama queens or characters who were something of drama queens on DS. Carolyn was most certainly one of them, particularly during the first year of the show. (Whoa, was she ever! [hall2_shocked]) But as you say, soap opera is operatic and, well, opera and over-dramatic characters/situations tend to go hand in hand. [hall2_wink]
-
I'll just throw in one last comment and back away cautiously from the whole subject, because it's not really good for me to stay in this one. I don't know if DQs exist (though I like that cherry dip they have for the ice cream cones... I'm getting confised now, sorry), from lack of personal experience, but the existence of the idea is dangerous. It's too easy to give in to temptation to misapply it. I have a destructive medical condition that is automatically dismissed or at least downgraded in most people's imaginations, to something far less severe than it really is, because it's so hard to come up with language for. People assume that if it were serious, I'd have no trouble talking about it. Something like that.
I'm then treated by many of these people as a "DQ" in everything but name. I was never literally awarded the title, but they were thinking it pretty loudly, or an equivalent. 26 years of this. I'll stop there, since no one wants to read that depressing an autobiography. And contrary to the opinions of those people I've had to deal with in life over all those years (not any of you), I can't stand drawing attention to myself, and to this "thing" of mine.
I just hope people will try to think twice or half a dozen times, before making that judgment about someone. Just be careful, please. Maybe you already do, and if so, thanks.
-
As a point of interest, I just asked JF if he thought the character of Barnabas was a "drama queen." He totally did not understand why anyone would think that in the first place. But I can see how people would think that though I don't agree.
Nancy
-
What you should have asked is if he thought Barnabas was "something of a drama queen." [hall2_smiley] But it's too late for that because the idea of Barn not being a drama queen is already in his mind. [hall2_wink]
-
What you should have asked is if he thought Barnabas was "something of a drama queen." [hall2_smiley] But it's too late for that because the idea of Barn not being a drama queen is already in his mind. [hall2_wink]
I would assume (always a dangerous thing) that Frid doesn't SEE Barnabas as a drama queen because he never thought he was PLAYING him as a drama queen.
-
he never thought he was PLAYING him as a drama queen.
Nor should he have. Any actor who's in touch with his/her craft is going to find a reason to justify all of his/her character's actions in order to play the truth of any given scene/situation as the character sees it. Though that's not to say that those looking from outside the character's viewpoint might see it the same way, particularly because they don't necessarily have to justify the character's actions.
-
in my opinion every single one of them was a drama queen...
...except for perhaps joe haskell. [hall2_rolleyes]
-
As a point of interest, I just asked JF if he thought the character of Barnabas was a "drama queen." He totally did not understand why anyone would think that in the first place. But I can see how people would think that though I don't agree.
The drama queen comments are interesting. The thought of Barnabas being a drama queen never entered my mind in the whole three years I've been watching DS vidoes. I know he has had lots of tragedy to deal with and I must say that it is J Frid's beautiful and sometimes poetic renditions and amazing ability to pull audiences into his pain and anguish that, I believe, is the key to the character's popularity. For instance, his reaction to Josette being buried and calling her from the grave might be considered dramatic or in this instance "drama queen" material. But, I consider Frid's command of these scenes quite beautiful. These are dramatic and painful moments, spoken with a hurt passion that, in my opinion, can make me watch those scenes over and over again. Rarely, if the writing is there to support him, is Frid dull or trite. I don't consider Barnabas a drama queen but I consider his story quite dramatic and Frid pulls you right in.
-
I don't see the terminology of the phrase to mean anything differently. If someone is something of a drama queen or a drama queen the suggestion is still there the person is overly melodramatic. If the whole series is operatic, nearly everyone involved was basically on the same pitch in terms of drama. Methinks, anyway. [hall2_kiss]
Nancy
What you should have asked is if he thought Barnabas was "something of a drama queen." [hall2_smiley] But it's too late for that because the idea of Barn not being a drama queen is already in his mind. [hall2_wink]
-
I don't see the terminology of the phrase to mean anything differently. If someone is something of a drama queen or a drama queen the suggestion is still there the person is overly melodramatic.
True - but there are degrees. At least methinks so, and that's how Zahir and I have been speaking about it:
... If one goes back and reads Zahir's post, one will note that he says Barnabas was "something of a drama queen," meaning he wasn't necessary a full fledged example but someone who exhibited drama queenish tendancies ...
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. [hall2_kiss]
-
Oh, yes, MB I do understand the definition you and Zahir were going by in your discussion. I don't think given Barnabas' situation and the fact he was whacked in the head as a result, I don't believe he exhibited the tendencies of a drama queen to any greater degree than others to the point of singling him out as having said tendencies. He was in unchartered territory for most beings and fearful of being exposed at every moment. It is almost impossible to be melodramatic or overreact to much given his situation.
Did he make rash and potentially self-destructive decisions? Yes.
Nancy
I don't see the terminology of the phrase to mean anything differently. If someone is something of a drama queen or a drama queen the suggestion is still there the person is overly melodramatic.
True - but there are degrees. At least methinks so, and that's how Zahir and I have been speaking about it:
... If one goes back and reads Zahir's post, one will note that he says Barnabas was "something of a drama queen," meaning he wasn't necessary a full fledged example but someone who exhibited drama queenish tendancies ...
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. [hall2_kiss]
-
Oh, yes, MB I do understand the definition you and Zahir were going by in your discussion. I don't think given Barnabas' situation and the fact he was whacked in the head as a result, I don't believe he exhibited the tendencies of a drama queen to any greater degree than others to the point of singling him out as having said tendencies.
Well, as I said:
there is no shortage of drama queens or characters who were something of drama queens on DS.
And I definitely agree with mscbryck that pretty much every DS character has something of the drama queen in them. Certainly at one time or another they do. And besides Carolyn, I mean, just look at the way Roger often acts. I love him, but if he isn't prone to bouts of over-dramatization and exaggeration, no one on DS is! [hall2_wink] Actually, almost any member of the entire Collins family throughout all its various generations could be Drama Queen Syndrome's poster child. [hall2_grin] Perhaps it's hereditary with them. [hall_grin]
Truthfully, I think we're basically saying the same thing. We're just not necessarily agreeing on what term to call it. [hall2_wink]
-
Oh my lord! I just had the biggest WTF moment just last night viewing a new (for me) episode! Episode 794: [spoiler]Angelique reveals to Barnabas that Quentin is going to marry her in return for her removing the curse. Barnabas tells her not to marry Quentin because SHE'S INTERFERING WITH HISTORY![/spoiler]
Hello! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I nearly spit out my coke when he said that. This coming from the vampire who has his fangs in every pie in 1897! Barnabas has broken every law in the Time Travel Handbook and even drives Dr. Who to tears!
Thank god Angelique replied that Barnabas has already interfered much more than she has! That's one thing I love about Angelique, she sees right through his self-righteous, hypocritical bull shit. I know she was responsible for his vampire curse, but no one twisted Barnabas's arm into being more than just a silent observer of the events unfolding in 1897!
-
Actually, almost any member of the entire Collins family throughout all its various generations could be Drama Queen Syndrome's poster child. [hall2_grin] Perhaps it's hereditary with them. [hall_grin]
Wellllll, speaking as both a Drama Queen and Princess - according to recent testing [hall2_wink] - and based on many years of personal observation I must say that YES it can definitely be genetic. It doesn't apply to everyone but, there are several individuals on my mother's side who you might think missed their calling in the acting profession. So, I wouldn't find it difficult to see this as an ongoing Collins trait. Of course with their money you're allowed to call them eccentric¢â‚¬¦if they were poor slobs from the wrong side of Collinsport they'd just be plain nuts. But, I suppose that's another can of chowder.
-
I wouldn't find it difficult to see this as an ongoing Collins trait. Of course with their money you're allowed to call them eccentric¢â‚¬¦if they were poor slobs from the wrong side of Collinsport they'd just be plain nuts. But, I suppose that's another can of chowder.
OMG, *so* true! The strange rich are 'eccentric' and strange PWTT (poor white trailer trash) are nuts! [hall2_cool]
-
Just wondering why my last post was spoilered? I'm not complaining or anything, I just thought that if the whole topic was spoilered, we didn't have to spoiler anything. If we still have to spoiler our posts in a spoilered topic, than I will be more cryptic with plot points in the future.
-
Just wondering why my last post was spoilered? I'm not complaining or anything, I just thought that if the whole topic was spoilered, we didn't have to spoiler anything. If we still have to spoiler our posts in a spoilered topic, than I will be more cryptic with plot points in the future.
Please don't be more cryptic. You're right that it isn't required in this topic, and it's the visitor's responsibility to note that an entire topic is spoilered. (Anyone reading posts via the new post links on the home page who is concerned about spoilers, beware, because message icons don't display in those listings.) I added the spoiler code as an extra safeguard because the plot point is less common, and since it's preceded by the ep #, readers could figure out for themselves if they want to read one from it. So I was coming from a better-safe-than-sorry place. [hall2_smiley]
-
So I was coming from a better-safe-than-sorry place. (hall2_smiley)
Which is always best. [hall_smiley]
I hadn't even considered the links from the recent topics list - nor the links from the "Show unread posts since last visit" feature. [hall2_embarrassed] I should most probably consider trying to come up with some sort of spoiler warning for those links as well. [hall2_wink] But that will have to wait until after we switch to SMF 1.1. [hall2_smiley]
-
nor the links from the "Show unread posts since last visit" feature. [hall2_embarrassed]
That does display message icons. But the "View the 10 most recent posts..." feature and the listing of "Recent posts" don't.
-
Ah, OK. (You can tell I use it so often. [hall2_cheesy])
How odd that "Show unread posts since last visit" and the Search feature results both display message icons, but "Recent posts" doesn't. [hall2_undecided]
-
I think I just saw the biggest "What the?!?" moment last night. In 1897, [spoiler]Count Petofi is posessing Jamison, and Barnabas and Magda have the little hell spawn locked up in a cell. So Petofi/Jamison spends about 10 seconds pretending he's not posessed anymore, and Magda totally falls for it! Oh, give me a break! You just can't make charcters behave that stupidly and still expect us to believe they can dress themselves and find their way around the house without getting lost.[/spoiler]
-
In regards to Barnabas' reaction to [spoiler]Angelique telling him she is marrying Quentin[/spoiler] His response was even worse, he said "I have done my best to keep history as it should be"! That was WTF moment for me. Given the fact the as soon as he arrived he meddled in everyone's life and caused all that chaos!
[spoiler]of course the one time he should have interfered--Magda placing the werewolf curse on Quentin, he is nowhere to be found! And the curse was placed by the woman he was controlling.[/spoiler]
-
While I agree Barnabas meddled more than he should have when he went back to 1897, we must remember it had NEVER been his intention to go back in time....[spoiler]he merely wanted to use the I-Ching to get in contact with Quentin's ghost and try to get him to release David.[/spoiler]
True, Barnabas accusing Angelique of meddling in history did seem too hyprocritical, she's no innocent babe either. [spoiler]She only agreed to help Quentin rid him of his werewolf curse and to help Edward and Jamison when Petofi had possessed them if he agreed to marry her. She always had a price for helping people. And the way she smugly told Beth Quentin was going to marry HER instead was so cruel and heartless.[/spoiler]
So even though he did meddle too much in the past (intentionally or unintentionally) Barnabas at least had good intentions [spoiler](saving David's life and trying to end Chris' curse).[/spoiler] Angelique on the other hand, was always demanding a price for helping someone, for her own selfish gain.
-
I think my WHAT?!?!?! moment was when we learned that Vicki in 1795 had told Daniel and Sarah about the zodiac charms on her charm bracelet, and had described one of them as a "devil" and had described things that would be invented in the future like air travel and horseless carriages.
Vicki Vicki Vicki, I love you but you can be really clueless sometimes. You already have a religious zealot (Abigail) looking for the least thing to trip you up and you go talking about things that are sure to have you sent to the gallows for practicing witchcraft or at the very least locked up as insane (and mad houses in the 18th century were horrible places indeed.) tsk
-
Daniel also said Vicky told him about a box that you hear voices out of LOL!
Being a governess/tutor, I would gather she assumed witchcraft trials were over and done with for over one hundred years, so she probably thought she was safe.
Actually there were witch trials in the 18th & 19th century I learned from Wikipedia.
-
Given that Abigail was talking about possession by the devil right from the start, Vicky should have been more careful, if only to avoid being thought of as "Miss Winters who always sends Abigail into a tizzy...surely we could find somebody more suitable for Sarah...Nathan, do you know if any of the serving girls at the Eagle would be interested in the job?"
Not long before the disastrous end, Vicky got hysterical and said it was all a dream, and tried to wake herself up from it. Perhaps she had that feeling all the way through, so that it seemed it didn't matter what she said - and, in fact, if she started talking about resemblances and future inventions, the 1795 people would turn into the 1967 people and she wouldn't be alone anymore, and a plane would come up to the front door of the Old House and take her to Belem to find Burke.
-
When Vicki was first accused of witchcraft, Barnabas took her to see a judge who was very sympathetic to her. He didn't believe in witchcraft, he was quite willing to drop the whole matter, etc. So then Vicki decides "it would be best" to tell him the truth, that she's from the future, she came back via saence, etc. Since she was basically giving a full confession, the judge really couldn't help but put her on trial.
That was pretty much the moment when I lost all sympathy for Vicki.
-
I agree it was very stupid of Vicki to keep blabbing about coming from the future. All she did was fuel the flames and give her enemies more annumition to destroy her with and even those who came to her defense (such as Barnabas and Naomi) began to doubt her....after all who ever heard of anyone travelling back in time (non-witch of course)?
-
i can only guess that the writers must have felt that vicki's compulsion to always tell the truth in spite of the perilous situation it placed her in was supposed to make her seem "virtuous"...in other word good girls don't tell lies.
this quality of of "virtue" imposed on the character is what eventually lead to her coming across as so dimwitted.
it's probably not what the writers intended at the time but ultimately(especially when put into a contemporary context)that's the impression one gets.
p.s. it's funny that the whole "witch" thing started because vicki showed up in a short skirt and a charm bracelet. ::)
-
I can only imagine the riots that she would've started if she had started blabbing about the adult film industry.
-
this quality of of "virtue" imposed on the character is what eventually lead to her coming across as so dimwitted.
That's a good point. When we start talking about the subtelties of where virtue ends and stupidity begins, we have to remember the show was made almost 40 years ago, and we're viewing it through much more jaded and cynical eyes today.
-
I can only imagine the riots that she would've started if she had started blabbing about the adult film industry.
Good one, Brandon!! [laughing4] [laughing4]
-
i can only guess that the writers must have felt that vicki's compulsion to always tell the truth in spite of the perilous situation it placed her in was supposed to make her seem "virtuous"...in other word good girls don't tell lies.
this quality of of "virtue" imposed on the character is what eventually lead to her coming across as so dimwitted.
Good point. At the time it was still being shown on the air, it must have seemed to the viewers at the time Vicki was mercilessly and cruelly being persecuted (which she was). But even as a child back in the good old 80's, while I sympathized with her (because she was kind and had a good heart) I could see that she did bring a lot of her troubles on herself. She did more harm than good to her own safety by constantly telling everyone what was gonna happen to them. Her intentions were good, but you know what they say about the road to good intentions.... ::)
-
When Vicki was first accused of witchcraft, Barnabas took her to see a judge who was very sympathetic to her. He didn't believe in witchcraft, he was quite willing to drop the whole matter, etc. So then Vicki decides "it would be best" to tell him the truth, that she's from the future, she came back via saence, etc. Since she was basically giving a full confession, the judge really couldn't help but put her on trial.
But even in that case, wouldn't the more obvious assumption be that Vicki was insane rather than that Vicki was a witch? Wouldn't a reasonable, skeptical judge be more likely write out an order committing her to Windcliff or Rushmore Sanitarium or whatever version of Bedlam existed in 1795? The very idea of trying somebody for witchcraft in 18th Century America is what seems so absurd.
ProfStokes
-
Good point. At the time it was still being shown on the air, it must have seemed to the viewers at the time Vicki was mercilessly and cruelly being persecuted (which she was).
Sorry....even in the 60's we "original" fans knew she was acting like a flaming idiot by talking her way into the noose. I specifically recall tossing pillows at the TV and shouting " For Pete's sake, SHUT UP!!"
-
Sorry....even in the 60's we "original" fans knew she was acting like a flaming idiot by talking her way into the noose. I specifically recall tossing pillows at the TV and shouting " For Pete's sake, SHUT UP!!"
OMG! Me too! I was like, "Shut the F up woman!" >:(
-
Sorry....even in the 60's we "original" fans knew she was acting like a flaming idiot by talking her way into the noose. I specifically recall tossing pillows at the TV and shouting " For Pete's sake, SHUT UP!!"
I don't doubt there were a lot of viewers in the 60's watching it that first time infuriated by Vicki's continuing stupidity in 1795. My mom, when she was watching it back then told me that the moment [spoiler]Vicki told Josette about Josette's impending death and the Collins family history book, Mom was thinking Vicki might as well start walking towards the gallows and put the noose around her neck right then and there.[/spoiler]
I also think Vicki was equally dumb admitting [spoiler]on the stand that she had taken part of a seance, a ritual to talk with a spirit. Of course that is gonna look bad! I know Trask was really grilling her and he wasn't about to let up, but in this instance she should have known to admit participating in an attempt to talk to the dead was to sign she was sealing her own fate![/spoiler]
-
But even in that case, wouldn't the more obvious assumption be that Vicki was insane rather than that Vicki was a witch? Wouldn't a reasonable, skeptical judge be more likely write out an order committing her to Windcliff or Rushmore Sanitarium or whatever version of Bedlam existed in 1795? The very idea of trying somebody for witchcraft in 18th Century America is what seems so absurd.
I'm not sure even a tame version of an 18th century insane asylum would be considered soap opera viewing material. The way the insane were treated (or not treated) in times past was pretty horrific.
If Vicki had been a member of the family, they would have just locked her up in the tower room or something! :) Protect the family name, you know.
I guess another WHAT??? moment from that same time period is how little sense it seemed to make to single out Vicki. True, she was the strange stranger, but absolutely NONE of the tragedies that befell the Collinses benefited her in any way. It just seems odd that in spite of the furor over Vicki the witch, even after she was in jail, that no one looked around and said, "Hey, Angelique seems to have gotten a lot out of this this whole witch thing, at the least I would have thought people might suspect they were in league.
-
I guess another WHAT??? moment from that same time period is how little sense it seemed to make to single out Vicki. True, she was the strange stranger, but absolutely NONE of the tragedies that befell the Collinses benefited her in any way. It just seems odd that in spite of the furor over Vicki the witch, even after she was in jail, that no one looked around and said, "Hey, Angelique seems to have gotten a lot out of this this whole witch thing, at the least I would have thought people might suspect they were in league.
It seems obvious to us, who saw Angelique in action, but if I were reading this as a mystery without knowing who did it, I'd have my doubts.
Angelique's motivation for her witchcraft was her love for Barnabas. (No need to digress into the question of whether Angelique's feeling for Barnabas was in fact love; she thought it was love, and that's all that matters.) But a witch - a servant of the devil - would be assumed, especially by her 18th-century acquaintances, to be totally unconcerned with feelings of love. If you're looking for a witch, the motivations you're going to be looking for are fear, vengeance, power, and money.
Fear: I don't see where anybody would imagine that Angelique feared bad treatment by the Dupres family or the Collins.
Vengeance: The Dupres family believed that it had treated Angelique well - in fact, better than she might have expected, since her mother had a bad reputation. Barnabas was the only one who knew that Angelique had anything to avenge, but he was sort of clueless. If he had been capable of seeing what sort of person she was, he never would have slept with her in the first place. Additionally, he didn't believe in witches until he was faced with inescapable evidence.
Power and money: that's out. Joshua told Barnabas and Angelique that he would disinherit or disown or dis-something Barnabas if he married Angelique. At this point, any proper witch would call off the wedding and start looking for new, richer prey. But Angelique didn't. She was all set to ride off into the sunset with Barnabas.
[spoiler]It's funny to think how Naomi, by giving the Old House to Barnabas with the very best of intentions, set the scene for the whole bloodbath that followed. If Barnabas and Angelique had left, their marriage might have had a chance.[/spoiler]
Anyway, if a witch was looking for worldly gains, the obvious target was Jeremiah. We know he had money of his own, independent of Joshua; Joshua commented after Jeremiah's death that his estate was larger than they had known. (I wonder: who eventually got Jeremiah's money?) Jeremiah was unencumbered by a wife or fiancee, and we know that Angelique could make him fall in love; she certainly proved that.
We're living in an age when "The butler did it" is a cliche. It became that way because once upon a time nobody did think of the butler. Or the maid. Vicky, for all her cluelessness, was apparently the only one who noticed that Angelique was in love with Barnabas - and Vicky was from the 20th century.
-
I am currently watching DVD Collection 16. Last night, I saw an episode where Barnabas is telling Julia that Angelique is in 1897. Julia is surprised, and Barnabas tells her that Angelique showed up:
"A week ago. A week after I came here."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please, please tell me that it was a line flub by Frid. Please tell me that he was supposed to say "A month ago". Because, if I rewatched all of the 1897 episodes and added together the number of nights that they have had since Barnabas appeared, they might equal to about thirty. (Not counting the fact that they've had several full moons). But there is no way in hell that everything that has happened since Angelique was conjured up has happened in one week. No way.
-
I think that "a week ago" thing was mentioned before. I don't remember what was said though. It might have even been in this very thread.
Personally I don't think it was a Frid-flub. It was probably a stupid mistake on the part of the writers. But I'd agree that it was stupid, no matter whose fault it was. There is no way that a week went by given all that time that we'd already been in 1897, and, like you said PLT, all the full moons and nights that went by since Barnabas had been there.
Maybe Barnabas hadn't gotten the chance to check out a calendar, or maybe he ignored the sun dial in the garden or something...........Not that he would've been able to actually use it, but you get the point.
-
I am currently watching DVD Collection 16. Last night, I saw an episode where Barnabas is telling Julia that Angelique is in 1897. Julia is surprised, and Barnabas tells her that Angelique showed up:
"A week ago. A week after I came here."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please, please tell me that it was a line flub by Frid. Please tell me that he was supposed to say "A month ago". Because, if I rewatched all of the 1897 episodes and added together the number of nights that they have had since Barnabas appeared, they might equal to about thirty. (Not counting the fact that they've had several full moons). But there is no way in hell that everything that has happened since Angelique was conjured up has happened in one week. No way.
JF blew the line, and the second part-- "a week after I arrived from the present"-- sounds (to me, anyway) like he realized his mistake and attempted to correct himself. Which is slightly more forgivable when you consider that the script reads: JULIA: Angelique is here! BARNABAS: She put in an appearance about a week after I got here. my arrival from the future.
Brandon, soon you're going to get to the ep in which Quentin states she was there for 6 months, which makes loads more sense and brings it closer to "real time" if you were watching the show as it was originally broadcasted:
... 853 - A morose Quentin drinks and listens to his music in the drawing room. Kitty, fully-dressed and highly agitated, enters in and interrogates him all about [spoiler]his fiancee[/spoiler]--is she French? No, he says. (We accidentally see Lara Parker in the background.) She must be, frets Kitty, how long has she been here? Six months, and she came to see me, says Q.
-
Ah yes. I've seen that episode. I remember that now. Thanks Midnite!
-
AUGH! T_T Okay I'm on disc 2 of boxset 17 (which I got for Christmas thanks Mom & Dad) and [spoiler]Beth has finally figured out with much help that Petofi is in Quentin's body.[/spoiler] OK I figure she was probably hoping for a happy ending here and was putting on blinders... my gripe here is that the writers had her run to TIM SHAW for help?! WHY?! What the hell was the logic behind this decision? Because he's had dealings with Petofi? So has nearly EVERYONE ELSE in town! Why the hell didn't she run to Quentin for Chrissakes?!
Oh my God. Seriously.
AND THEN! To get away from him she ran from town to WIDOW's HILL?!?!
-
AUGH! T_T Okay I'm on disc 2 of boxset 17 (which I got for Christmas thanks Mom & Dad) and [spoiler]Beth has finally figured out with much help that Petofi is in Quentin's body.[/spoiler] OK I figure she was probably hoping for a happy ending here and was putting on blinders... my gripe here is that the writers had her run to TIM SHAW for help?! WHY?! What the hell was the logic behind this decision? Because he's had dealings with Petofi? So has nearly EVERYONE ELSE in town! Why the hell didn't she run to Quentin for Chrissakes?!
Oh my God. Seriously.
AND THEN! To get away from him she ran from town to WIDOW's HILL?!?!
True, she really should have gone to Quentin first, rather than Tim Shaw. But she was so scared when she realized the truth, she probably wasn't thinking straight. And she was scared out of her wits when [spoiler]Tim brought Petofi to her and when she saw a chance to get away, she took it. Going to Widows' Hill in hindsight wasn't very bright either, but again she was terrified out of her mind, trying to get away from Petofi.[/spoiler]
Poor Beth....no matter what we think what she could or should have done, she didn't deserve what happened to her.
-
AUGH! T_T Okay I'm on disc 2 of boxset 17 (which I got for Christmas thanks Mom & Dad) and [spoiler]Beth has finally figured out with much help that Petofi is in Quentin's body.[/spoiler] OK I figure she was probably hoping for a happy ending here and was putting on blinders... my gripe here is that the writers had her run to TIM SHAW for help?! WHY?! What the hell was the logic behind this decision? Because he's had dealings with Petofi? So has nearly EVERYONE ELSE in town! Why the hell didn't she run to Quentin for Chrissakes?!
Oh my God. Seriously.
AND THEN! To get away from him she ran from town to WIDOW's HILL?!?!
True, she really should have gone to Quentin first, rather than Tim Shaw. But she was so scared when she realized the truth, she probably wasn't thinking straight. And she was scared out of her wits when [spoiler]Tim brought Petofi to her and when she saw a chance to get away, she took it. Going to Widows' Hill in hindsight wasn't very bright either, but again she was terrified out of her mind, trying to get away from Petofi.[/spoiler]
Poor Beth....no matter what we think what she could or should have done, she didn't deserve what happened to her.
I agree with everything everyone has said on this one. There's enough loose ends in how they chose to write Beth out (and assassinate what was at the beginning a very spirited and intelligent character) to crochet a dozen new afghans! [8311] [help]
I LIKE Beth, like writing her, and she really got a bum rap from the writers.
Not to mention the [spoiler]way she fell off Widows Hill. When you actually look at it closely, it's really hard to believe that she had to falll at all. He has her hand and she does like a dance dip under his arm. ALL he had to do was grab her hand and fall backwards and they would have fallen backwards onto stable ground, her on top of him.[/spoiler]
I used the latter scenario in a Quentin and Beth alternate I wrote that is slated for the next issue of World of Dark Shadows (end obligatory plug ;D)