DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '07 I => Topic started by: michael c on June 27, 2007, 07:04:56 PM

Title: the gang in 1795...
Post by: michael c on June 27, 2007, 07:04:56 PM
...were they a bunch of chowderheads?

i've been watching 1795.i haven't seen it in a few years and in a second go round i'm noticing a few things.

for starters the persecution vicki undergoes is more relentless than i had remembered.for goodness sake she showed up under strange circumstances in a short skirt and a charm bracelet.she said stupid things.but a witch?

doesn't a witch need some sort of motivation for her acts?didn't anyone look around and say "well angelique certainly has gained a great deal from all of this misfortune".as soon as barnabas announced the engagement light bulbs should have been going on around collinwood.she secured a husband,home,marriage into a wealthy and prominent family.at the very least she improved her station as a ladies maid.

josette was supposed to be as innocent as the driven snow but couldn't she recognize a rival when she was staring her in the face?what was everyone thinking?what did this silly girl sitting in "goal" get out of any of this? ::)
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: MagnusTrask on June 27, 2007, 08:24:23 PM
And why wouldn't job 1 of any witch be to use her powers to put suspicion onto someone else?   That, or walking straight out of gaol at a suitably dramatic "screw you" moment.

It seems improbable that the gaolers wouldn't think of these things, but witches did burn, so the same convenient, sloppy logic that led to the arrests of witches in real life could have also led to rationalizations, such as "the witch doesn't escape because we are so pure and righteous and are doing God's work, so God's stopping her"... that sort of thing.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Gothick on June 27, 2007, 08:28:12 PM
MSC, I think there's a huge amount of really sloppy writing around Vicki's persecution and trial as a Witch.  I find it nearly impossible to sit through any of Vicki's trial scenes.  I keep reminding myself that people who persecuted Witches tended to be really ignorant and here and now in this supposedly enlightened age we have far too many examples right before us of just how dangerous and vicious ignorant people can be.

There are some wonderful elements to 1795 but IMO Vicki's role in the story is far from being one of them.

G.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: David on June 27, 2007, 08:34:30 PM
I find that everyone in 1795 thinking Vicki is a witch to be perfectly reasonable for a bunch of Puritans.

Look at the nonsense religious nuts believe in today.........
it's the same mentality.

But Vicki herself is too naive to be believable.

David
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: adamsgirl on June 27, 2007, 09:55:00 PM
I think it was natural for suspicion to fall on Vicki. First, there were the odd circumstances she showed up in and her "strange" clothes. Second, she kept calling people by other names and seemed to know Barnabas right off the bat. Then, all that misfortune befell the Collinses. Angelique, on the other hand, was a trusted servant of the DuPres family, so she was able to get away with everything she pulled without causing suspicion. However, there was one scene -- SPOILER ALERT!!!!!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
where Abigail suspected Angelique when the family first moves into the "new" house. Jeremiah's ghost was wreaking havoc in one of the rooms, and old Abby thought Angie had done it (which she had).

Too, Vicki did not know when to keep her mouth shut! I mean, what struck me was how stupid she was, telling people about airplanes and telephones! Duh -- and that was BEFORE she admitted she came from the future, which was another mistake. All in all, Vicki didn't use her head, but then again, she "didn't understand!" -- LOL!
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: michael c on June 27, 2007, 10:28:47 PM
the dupres and collins families didn't otherwise strike me as "puritans".they were wealthy and extravagant.

by the late 1700's weren't we almost a century away from the puritan movement?

vicki always gets slagged for her dimness during this storyline but it seems like just about everyone else checked their heads at the door as well.

Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: loril54 on June 28, 2007, 12:59:00 AM
Quote from: mscbryk on June 27, 2007, 10:28:47 PM
vicki always gets slagged for her dimness during this storyline but it seems like just about everyone else checked their heads at the door as well.

I do agree with you!  ::) I bet everone was screeming at home. "It is Angelique"  But have the Collins ever been smart. you wonder how they made their money.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Brandon Collins on June 28, 2007, 05:57:32 AM
Vicki was incrediably stupid during this time period, as Adamsgirl pointed out, telling young Daniel and Sarah about airplanes and telephones. Not to mention that she admitted to being from the future, just like Adamsgirl said. All in all, Vicki was 60% of the stupidity running around during this time.

And, truth be told, it's not all that unthinkable that maybe those accusing Vicki may have thought that she didn't give a hoot damn about being found out, because, she was a witch, and everyone feared her. So maybe her accusers thought that she didn't care if she was found out, because they would just pop up dead anyway.

Actually, look what happened

SPOILER
*
*
*
*
*
Abigail and Trask, her two BIGGEST accusors, DID die, even though it wasn't by Vicki's hand.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: David on June 28, 2007, 07:08:04 AM
Though the official Puritan era was long over by 1795, Puritanism as a state of mind still existed, as it does today.

Just watch any random episode of the 700 Club & listen to Rev. Pat espouse the same kind of lunacy that inspired the Salem Witch Trials!

David
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: adamsgirl on June 28, 2007, 02:20:47 PM
You have a good point, David. Although "official" Puritanism had ended by then, it left its stamp on our society and continues till this day. I find it fascinating, though, because I've always been intrigued by history.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Gerard on June 28, 2007, 06:06:50 PM
What really bugged me was the whole thing about putting Vicki (or Phyllis) on trial for witchcraft.  The Salem incident was just barely over a 100 years old and had embarrassed the heck out of New England, bringing such trials to an end.  To think, a century later, that they would accuse somebody of the capital crime of witchcraft to me was simply ludicrous.  Okay, so it was a good angle, but it was still horrifically historically innacurate.

Now, I could see them still filled with superstitious puritanism and thinking Vicki was a witch, and wanting to deal with her, yet knowing putting her on trial for it would be impossible.  It would've made more sense, in my opinion, if they had charged her with murder, since that was a crime, and said she used witchcraft as the weapon.  That way, they could've had their cake and ate it, too.  They could argue that they weren't trying her for witchcraft, and even though it was no longer considered a crime, that doesn't mean that it didn't exist.  All they had to do was prove that she used it to commit murder or any other illegal mayhem.  That, I think, would have made the whole story more interesting:  she's being tried for murder, and the "weapon" was witchcraft, and there could be a whole lot of arguments between the characters if the accused choice of weapon was real or not.

Gerard
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: MagnusTrask on June 28, 2007, 06:38:41 PM
I think part of the idea was that Collinsport, Mass/Maine was SO out-of-the-way, so much of a backwater, that time had stood still a bit, and given a weird enough newcomer to the community, witch-paranoia could be revived.   I really hope everyone does know that the ideas of witches and with-trials were a century (and a half??) out-of-date by this point.

This was the United States and we even had the Constitution by this point, so no sloppy vague patchwork of states or communities with their own laws anymore.... I would think that there was zero possibility of any backwater thinking it was on firm legal ground, having a damn witchcraft trial.    But this one of the few storylines that works, sort of, so let's not dismantle it please....

I'd call this a spoiler re 1840, but I think it's better to brace for these things... if you didn't like the improbable 1795 witch-trial, just stay tuned for 1840....

I'm getting very disillusioned lately, re DS.    It's my circumstances probably.    I'm not picking up on the atmosphere of it, and the holes in plots are more apparent.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: IluvBarnabas on June 28, 2007, 07:02:35 PM
I agree that Vicki was very stupid to keep blurting out things that were going to happen....while her heart may have been in the right place (the same can't be said for her head) it never occured to her that all she was doing was giving the people who believed her to be a witch more ammunition to use against her?

SPOILER ALERT:



Not to mention she also turned others against her by blurting out what the Collins Family History Book said (Josette, Joshua, the Countess, even Naomi nearly turned on her when Vicki tried to warn her about Sarah).


As adamsgirl point out, the weird stuff happening didn't start happening until Vicki arrived so it's not surprising she rose to the top of the suspect list of being a witch. However, Peter Bradford pointed out a bit later on that Vicki never profitted from the evil that was being done, but one person did.....Angelique. For the most part, Angelique did a great job of casting suspicion away from her, but there was one occasion where her behavior could have fallen under suspicion....the fact she knew how to 'cure' Sarah through a special brew, she was able to, as Abigail had said, accomplished something doctors of medicine hadn't been able to do.


The witchcraft trial did sort of drag, but despite that I enjoyed 1795. It's just too bad that Vicki acted like such a nitwit when it came to being accused of a witch....but I suppose they needed someway to have her go back to the 20th century eventually and hanging was the only (or perhaps the only imaginitive) way to get her back there.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Brandon Collins on June 28, 2007, 07:19:24 PM
SPOILERS

The 1795 trial wasn't quite as preposterous as the one in 18*0. I mean, the same things basically happened, with the real witch pinning the blame on someone else, but in 18*0, another 45 years into the future from 1795, and nearly 200 years from the original witch trials, this should've been completely discounted. They definitely should've known better. It would've been a helluva lot more interesting if they had've made some kind of slavery storyline, since this was around the time when the initial stirring of emancipation was going around.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: adamsgirl on June 28, 2007, 07:24:22 PM
Yes, Brandon -- 1840 was preposterous with that trial. However, the writers took a stab at explaining it, because even Desmond brought up the Consitution. They said some nonsense about the law being outside the Constitution because it was enacted prior to the Revolution, or some such idiocy. It didn't ring true, but it moved the storyline along, or so they thought.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: MagnusTrask on June 28, 2007, 07:51:22 PM
In 1840... It had something to do with the US supposedly accepting colonial laws, in some agreement at some point... and somehow, it seemed as if the fact that colonial law allowed witch trials superceded any later federal law or state law...?     Which is ridiculous, since in law, it's whatever law as enacted most recently that counts.

They got one thing right.    Maine was made a state in 1820, 20 years before 1840.

I've never liked courtroom drama.    I do remember that Perry Mason was the most popular drama in syndication, though.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Willie on June 28, 2007, 08:20:38 PM
I think the 1795 stuff was done quite well.  Victoria's main accuser was Abigail, who spent her whole life seeing the devil all around her, and probably enjoyed pinning all her superstition on someone tangible.  Then there was Trask, who was a fanatic who didn't mind blackmailing people into offering false testimony, and was also tricked by Angelique with the burning tree and Vicki running out of the old house when he was performing his ceremony at the front door.  Joshua didn't care much about servants, as Ben was probably innocent of any real wrongdoing yet he kept him as an indentured servant, mistreating him badly.  So we can't expect him to be her defender.  I'll give him credit though, he thought the whole witchcraft thing was hogwash and only gave in once a fair amount of outside pressure was put on him.  Naiomi was drinking sherry from dawn to dusk and very upset with family problems, so we can't expect her to have been the slueth that outed the real witch.  Barnabas never believed she was a witch, but he was dealing with all sorts of emotional difficulties at the time - the love of his life marrying his uncle (and he was still pining after her 200 years later).  And he did have some sort of romantic involvement with Angelique, which can easily blind a person to their faults.  And then of course there is Vicki - I'll never forget the scene where Barnabas used his influence to get a judge to have a meeting with her, she could have easily denied the whole thing and it would have almost certainly went away at that point, but no, she starts blabbing about coming back in time and everything else.  She convinced a judge (who didn't believe in witchcraft) that she was probably a witch.  I think she deserves all the criticism she gets, and then some.

Overall, everyone in the family was very upset with all the events taking place, so it's very easy to understand why no one sat back and thought "who is benefiting from all this?" like they were Columbo or something.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: MagnusTrask on June 28, 2007, 08:40:58 PM
Quote
only gave in once a fair amount of outside pressure was put on him.

Not something I really want to give Joshua a lot of credit for.

I should point out something that people here probably know in the backs of their heads, but which none dare blurt out loud... people now are in large part idiots.    The majority now just possess different triggers for their fanaticism or ganging-up/mobbing tendencies.    Cries of witchcraft don't do it anymore, because that's been thorouhly discredited.    It's a pop cliche now, going on a witch-hunt.   It's synonymous with unfairness.    McCarthyism along with it, fortunately.   

The triggers are less easy to characterize in words, now, but maybe someone in the 22nd century will do it, looking back at the 21st.    Islam=terrorism, that's an easy one.    US=Great Satan, too.     Mobbing against not only gays but anyone not seen as 'macho' enough, or whatever the fashionable word is now, for that, especially in school.    Liberal=depraved.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: michael c on June 28, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
i agree that in general 1795 was very well done.i love it.

it's true that miss goody-two-shoes' "honesty is the best policy" didn't serve her particularly well here.

but i just think someone should have noted that angelique was the one who benefited the most here and perhaps questioned that.but obviously the writers needed for there to be a dramatic way for vicki to return to the present and they found it.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: MagnusTrask on June 29, 2007, 12:31:42 AM
I hope people won't take my last post in the wrong way.     I'm afraid that the problems I see are with the majority of people and of course I hope I'm wrong.    I wasn't attempting to point fingers or put anyone down, certainly not anyone here, but to say that 1795 was believeable to me because humans may not be all that different now... and I hope my saying this doesn't make me appear mean.    I can't put this any better at the moment.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on June 29, 2007, 06:00:29 AM
Quote from: mscbryk on June 28, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
but i just think someone should have noted that angelique was the one who benefited the most here and perhaps questioned that.

Well, doesn't Vicki draw that conclusion - albeit after Ben has already testified that Angelique was the witch. And shortly thereafter Peter gets Natalie to admit to the same. Though, of course, both realizations come way too late to change Vicki's fate...


Quote from: adamsgirl on June 28, 2007, 07:24:22 PM
However, the writers took a stab at explaining it, because even Desmond brought up the Consitution. They said some nonsense about the law being outside the Constitution because it was enacted prior to the Revolution, or some such idiocy. It didn't ring true, but it moved the storyline along, or so they thought.

Well, I don't know how nonsensical it might be, but, as I've made note of in the December 8th's slideshow:

(http://www.dsboards.com/eventimages/1208ds_15.jpg)
1970: Ep #1162 - Quentin is charged with witchcraft under law 119,
dated the 23rd of April, 1696, which the articles of Maine's statehood
specify the state keep even though it was a part of Massachusetts
at the time
so, it *might* have been quite true.


Quote from: MagnusTrask on June 28, 2007, 07:51:22 PM
in law, it's whatever law as enacted most recently that counts.

Actually, that's not always true as far too many people have learned that they can be charged with crimes under antiquated laws. So long as the laws are still on the books because no one has had the foresight to actually move to repeal them and have them removed, they're still enforceable no matter how ridiculous it may be to do so. Sadly, throughout history it's generally the minorities that fall victim to them, as, for example, gay people and blacks have been particularly subjected to this practice. And not in any way to make light of that situation, but just imagine what might have happened to Vicki if she had been a black lesbian accused of witchcraft...
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: adamsgirl on June 29, 2007, 02:51:54 PM
You're right, MB, about antiquated laws. In fact, there are laws regarding not tying your camel to a lamppost and such nonsense STILL on the books in Midwestern states. There are laws also saying that women can be beaten on the steps of a courthouse by their husbands, but no on Sundays. It goes on and on!
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: IluvBarnabas on June 29, 2007, 03:02:30 PM
I have to admit.....as ridiculous as it was watching a witchcraft trial taking place in 1840, in a period where those type of trials were long extinct (at least in the U.S.), I actually enjoyed it a lot more than the one in 1795.

I mentioned this in another thread awhile ago: Desmond made a hell of a lot better defense attorney than Peter Bradford did.

SPOILER ALERT:


Desmond made the argument (and a convincingly and reasonable argument) that no witchcraft trial had been held since the 1690's....why Peter didn't make this same argument in 1795, I don't know.

For dramatic purposes, the show had to have the court rule Quentin COULD be tried for witchcraft (and no doubt would have ruled the same for Vicki if Peter had been bright enough to bring it up), but in the real world, the court would have laughed out any charges of witchcraft by 1840 at least. The worst Quentin would have been tried for would have been for Randall Drew's murder, but the evidence was rather a bit too circumstancial to ensure a conviction (besides Gerard didn't want to see Quentin nailed merely for murder, he wanted to see him executed for witchcraft).

Fortunately for Gerard, and unfortunately for Quentin, the judges ruled that Quentin could be tried as a warlock since no one apparently had the smarts (on the show that is) to throw out those ridiculous superstious laws regarding witchcraft trials.


Which raises a question....I know they had to have written something that outlawed the practice of trying someone as a witch....I just don't know exactly when....was it immediately after the Salem Witch Trials, or later?
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Joeytrom on July 01, 2007, 12:22:00 AM
In 1840, could Judah Zachary have placed a spell on the court making them believe a witchcraft trial was legal to ensure Quentin would be hanged?
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Gerard on July 01, 2007, 12:57:36 AM
Quote from: Joeytrom on July 01, 2007, 12:22:00 AM
In 1840, could Judah Zachary have placed a spell on the court making them believe a witchcraft trial was legal to ensure Quentin would be hanged?

No.  The only who would've had powers to do that would've been lobbyists and PAC members.

Gerard
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: arashi on July 02, 2007, 12:45:43 AM
In October of 1692 Governor Phipps ordered that spectral evidence was no longer admissible in court, which is kind of interesting because all they used to accuse Vicki in 1795 was spectral evidence and the word of an unordained religious fanatic!
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: adamsgirl on July 02, 2007, 03:53:13 PM
Interesting, arashi! Apparently, the writers didn't do their homework. Then again, as kids, who knew? I just remember agonizing over poor Vicki being framed. I suppose, by then, the writers knew who their audience was and played to that, facts be damned -- LOL!
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: David on July 03, 2007, 03:32:37 AM
Just for the record:

Vicki is dumb. She sets herself up to walk into
traps and Peter Bradford is a BAD lawyer.

But 1795 as a story is magnificent!
JF, Joan and Louis really captured the tragedy of what happened to the Collins family.
Episodes like Josette coming out of her grave, Barnabas' first night as a vampire, the Bathia Mapes episodes, are scary as hell, even now.

And for a soap to do a story like this in the 1960s took guts.
Hell, this story would be ahead of it's time on daytime TV today!!

David
 
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: MagnusTrask on July 03, 2007, 04:50:24 PM
spoiler



I was disappointed by the end of 1795 though, and it seemed to be coming apart a bit.    Suddenly Natalie can summon a witch or witchy personage to the front door.    They can't be faulted for the fact that so many characters were dead by this point... but with fewer characters, less happens. 

Mainly... was this an altered timeline set in motion (knowingly or unknowingly) by Sarah's ghost, where Barnabas, even as a newly-minted vampire, was a nicer one than he would have been, because of Victoria's presence, and his concern for her?   Was he "originally" simply bloodthirsty, overwhelmed by the effects of the curse and bitterness?    Was the pivotal moment when he announced an impending bloodbath, then immediately changed his mind?   Did he not change his mind "the first time"?

I was very surprised to find Barnabas actually agreeing to be destroyed, though I need to keep reminding myself that he never agreed to be chained in the coffin... which I was going to say he'd never agree to do, since it's unequivocally a fate worse than death.... but when he popped back to 1796.... that was an impossible mess though, and I'm not getting tangled in that today.

Anyway, before seeing the end of 1795, I pictured Barnabas somehow being dragged off kicking and screaming to be chained up, which no one would have the power to do, granted, but I had thought the whole point was that he'd become an all-out monster, who then stewed in his maniacal juices till 1967.

Maybe they thought that showing Barnabas coming full-circle, becoming his 1967 self again in late 1795, would defeat the purpose of preparing viewers for him to become the protagonist.... it's good storytelling though.    It demands memory from the viewers, and those who have memory would have been rewarded.    What a moment it would have been, that torturous moment of out-of-control monstrous Barnabas being forced into the coffin, after his being so decent early in 1795, then we see him in 1968, but very differently.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: jennifer on July 03, 2007, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: David on June 28, 2007, 07:08:04 AM
Though the official Puritan era was long over by 1795, Puritanism as a state of mind still existed, as it does today.

Just watch any random episode of the 700 Club & listen to Rev. Pat espouse the same kind of lunacy that inspired the Salem Witch Trials!
[crazy] so true i work with a few people that are into that show
i just want to run from them sreaming :o
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: jennifer on July 03, 2007, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: David on July 03, 2007, 03:32:37 AM
Just for the record:

Vicki is dumb. She sets herself up to walk into
traps and Peter Bradford is a BAD lawyer.
heehee vicki was dumb but despite all it flaws i still love 1795 :)
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: loril54 on July 03, 2007, 07:58:58 PM
Anyone being locked up in a coffin for 170+ years might make someone pretty cranky. Also the writers at the begginning I don't think were planing to go back the 1795 or 96 or all the other years they went back to.   ::)
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: michael c on July 03, 2007, 09:19:37 PM
strangely as "out there" as the 1795 storyline is i find the witchtrial subplot to be the most unrealistic.it's certainly the worst part of an otherwise excellent story.

on a completely unrelated and pointless note during the time that vicki is in jail her hair suddeny gets very,very long.the longest she ever wears it on the show.
when josette sees herself in a "vampire vision" she sort of has a "farrah fawcet" hairstyle not otherwise seen on her.
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: Brandon Collins on July 03, 2007, 10:09:29 PM
Quote from: MagnusTrask on July 03, 2007, 04:50:24 PM
Mainly... was this an altered timeline set in motion (knowingly or unknowingly) by Sarah's ghost, where Barnabas, even as a newly-minted vampire, was a nicer one than he would have been, because of Victoria's presence, and his concern for her?   Was he "originally" simply bloodthirsty, overwhelmed by the effects of the curse and bitterness?    Was the pivotal moment when he announced an impending bloodbath, then immediately changed his mind?   Did he not change his mind "the first time"?

Anyway, before seeing the end of 1795, I pictured Barnabas somehow being dragged off kicking and screaming to be chained up, which no one would have the power to do, granted, but I had thought the whole point was that he'd become an all-out monster, who then stewed in his maniacal juices till 1967.

I don't think that Barnabas was "nicer" because Vicki was there. As I read into the story, Vicki simply took the place of Phyllis Wick, so if that's true, Barnabas should've been just as nice and concerned about Ms. Wick as he was about our Vicki.

I also don't believe that Barnabas ever intened, even in 1795, to go on a bloodbath. It wouldn't be true to his character, because even at his most evil, he still had a conscience about what he was going to do or had done. Barnabas volunteering to be destroyed was something he did because he loved his family, and he knew that as a result of Angelique's curse that if he continued living, the last few family members that were left alive in 1795 would die, just as all the others had, because they felt love for him. So, he was basically removing himself from the situation. Unfortunately, Barnabas didn't forsee that Joshua was going to take pity on his son and simply chain him up because he couldn't bare to give the order for his death. This shows that Joshua loves Barnabas, and, as a result of Angelique's curse, he should've died an untimely death too. Details, details.

Ultimately, I think this ties into the other thread that was going about whether or not Sarah had precognition, because there are a number of reasons that Vicki could've been transported to the past:

1) Sarah knew that Vicki was falling for Barnabas and since Sarah didn't want any harm to come to Vicki, she sent her into the past with the hope that Vicki would realize what Barnabas is and get scared. Under this idea, it was then planned by Sarah that when Vicki hanged she would revert back to her own time. Unfortunately, Sarah underestimated Vicki's incompetance.

2) Vicki just so happened to get sucked into a time warp, in a sort of "wrong place, wrong time" scenario.

Those are just two that I thought of off the top of my head. There could be many more. As to which is really true? Who the hell knows?
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: MagnusTrask on July 04, 2007, 12:35:06 AM
Quote
even at his most evil, he still had a conscience about what he was going to do or had done.

Remember Dave Woodard! (As JF almost said to GH once.)    1967 Barnabas is just despicable.   
Title: Re: the gang in 1795...
Post by: michael c on July 09, 2007, 05:53:37 PM
i watched the confrontational scene between abigail and barnabas("what are you doing here!?!")

talk about some bravura work from both jonathan frid and clarice blackburn.one of the best scenes ever i think.

i've kvetched about this endlessly but one of things i liked the most about this storyline is that all of the original actors were given interesting things to do along with jonathan,grayson and lara.

sadly after this storyline they get sidelined in favor of the "monster-of-the-week" situation.given the show's expansive premise they could have found new and interesting ways to use these characters but the writers seemed unsure of what to do with them.