DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '25 I => Current Talk '07 II => Topic started by: Watching Project on July 09, 2007, 06:07:53 PM
-
Robservations - #336
-
This was a good show. They are starting to get things rapped up for this storyline things are coming to a head. I wonder how RG would have played it with Sarah. He already knows that Sarah will not tell him things that she doesn't want him to know. I wonder if Sarah wants to get him to do something to stop Barnabas? But I wonder what she wants him to do. Doesn't she think that he will want to distroy her brother. Does she think that Barnabas will come out and tell everyone what he is and ask for forgiveness?
What does Sarah really want. Or is it just to prove that David is not crazy. I wonder if she could have done it a different way.
Julia just wants to protect Barnabas and herself. She has really gotten herself into a mess.
-
It's hard to guess what Sarah's motives are....I do believe that she does want someone to help David out....but how can one do that without endangering Barnabas' secret? Even though she hasn't appeared to him, I can't believe she wants to do anything to help destroy her big brother...unless it's to put him out of his miserable vampire existance.
One can only imagine how much more powerful the scene between Sarah and Dave Woodard would have been if Gerringer had stayed on to finish out the story.
Julia goes to great pains to try and discredit Dave's notions that he saw Sarah or that anyone else has seen her. She really did do a poor job to throw him off the trail.
Why oh why couldn't Dave have been more patient and wait for Burke to come back? Sigh.
Good episode nevertheless.
-
It's a bit irritating the way Julia implies David is unstable, or that he might be lying. I realized she's trying to protect Barnabas, but David is only a child after all, but she doesn't seem overly concerned about making him look bad.
Poor Burke, I always liked him and to know what will soon happen is tragic! :(
-
Dr. Woodard sure knew how to manipulate Sarah - better than anybody before him has ever done. I was a little surprised that she gave in when he said that David might be locked up. She was able to find Maggie when Maggie was locked up, so she should be able to find David if he's locked up.
I understand Vicky's concern for David and her reluctance to leave him, but given the way David continually has problems of some sort or other, if I were she I wouldn't make getting married contingent on David being OK. The thing to do would be to bring in a replacement now while Vicky's still there, and give her a month or so to settle in, and to see if David would take to her.
-
I understand Vicky's concern for David and her reluctance to leave him, but given the way David continually has problems of some sort or other, if I were she I wouldn't make getting married contingent on David being OK. The thing to do would be to bring in a replacement now while Vicky's still there, and give her a month or so to settle in, and to see if David would take to her.
But that is to logical, this is DS ;D
-
VW has loyalty to the family and David, and doesn't just consider it a job. There are relationships involved. A governess must ber more than a teacher. A substitute mommy for families where the mother is distant, I'd guess that's what it is often.
-
It just seems to me that Vicki uses any excuse not to marry Burke. I got the impression that the loss of her dream house was one excuse followed by David's problem. She certinly appears to me to be less than excited about marriage. Would she not be able to care for David even if she and Burke were married???? Of course she would.
Sarah refused to answer Dr. Woodard's question concernning the occupant of the coffin, yet she revealed much by her silence. Maybe she isn't protecting Barnabas after all. :-X
Misty
-
Sarah refused to answer Dr. Woodard's question concernning the occupant of the coffin, yet she revealed much by her silence. Maybe she isn't protecting Barnabas after all. :-X
I think Sarah would protect Barnabas, she just hadn't delt with adults. She is a kid. She only had to deal with David and Maggie.
-
Excellent episode, indeed! [cheer] I sorely missed Robert Gerringer. [sadg] It's too bad he didn't stay until the end... There wasn't much more to his run. I admire his principles for not crossing the picket line, though. [winkg]
I agree that Vicki should have been able to both work and be married. Burke seems to have some old-fashioned values in that regard.
I like the suit that Julia was wearing in this episode, and her hair looked nice, too. [banana] As much as she tried, she failed to get Dr. Woodard off the trail. He knew what he saw! [winkb]
----- Sally -----
[coolg] [hippy2]
-
I agree that Vicki should have been able to both work and be married. Burke seems to have some old-fashioned values in that regard.
Though they weren't quite considered old-fashioned in '67. As hard as it might be to believe from today's perspective, many in the audience would have understood his POV.
-
I wondered what Burke would have done if Vicki had decided to joined the Woman's Movement.... ;)
-
I wondered what Burke would have done if Vicki had decided to joined the Woman's Movement.... ;)
I don't know but, it might have helped him find that long-lost clue should have been searching for. ::)
-
I wondered what Burke would have done if Vicki had decided to joined the Woman's Movement.... ;)
He wanted her barefoot and pregnant. ;) I think Burke would have been clueless. :)
Look Downward.
If it was the east or west wing and you imagine PT happening earlier. How would they have expained Angelique Stokes. Trask the Butler. Prior to 1795.
-
The PT room is in the East Wing, so they would have been safe from that. But Quentin was in the West Wing. ;) Though without Chris and Amy around, he still might have remained dormant and Vicki and Burke probably would have had no reason the break down the false wall blocking the access to his room. Which is all too bad because think of how much more interesting it might have been to have had the Quentin storyline instead of the Adam storyline after Vicki's return from the past (which was the way the '91 series had planned to go had it done a second season).
-
The PT room is in the East Wing, so they would have been safe from that. But Quentin was in the West Wing. ;) Though without Chris and Amy around, he still might have remained dormant and Vicki and Burke probably would have had no reason the break down the false wall blocking the access to his room. Which is all too bad because think of how much more interesting it might have been to have had the Quentin storyline instead of the Adam storyline after Vicki's return from the past
Heh, heh. Well, Burke did ask Liz if the West Wing had any Collins skeletons hidden away. ;)
-
I understand Vicky's concern for David and her reluctance to leave him, but given the way David continually has problems of some sort or other, if I were she I wouldn't make getting married contingent on David being OK. The thing to do would be to bring in a replacement now while Vicky's still there, and give her a month or so to settle in, and to see if David would take to her.
I have to say I'm with Vicki on this. This time, David is seeing a psychiatrist who called him very disturbed, and the boy is having terrifying dreams, displaying a [seemingly] irrational fear of death, and focusing on an imaginary friend/ghost. Replacing the significant persons in his life, and that includes Burke, probably isn't a good idea right now, though it can't be as detrimental as military school <sigh>.
-
After all these years, I still don't understand what the rationale for sending "troubled" kids to military school is supposed to be, except maybe that it's to break their will, which is a disturbing thing for anyone to do to anyone else.
I'm glad to get the info. that the '91 series planned to go straight to Quentin, but it confirms that they were determined to use the same old plots. Suspense is a little difficult to achieve when you know what's going to happen....
-
one book that never leaves my night table is "AMY VANDERBILT'S COPMPLETE BOOK OF ETIQUETTE.A GUIDE TO GRACIOUS LIVING" published in 1952.i read it just for fun.
it outlines the byzantine rituals of upper-class life at the time.included are chapters devoted to such indespensable information as what type of clothes to pack for hunting and shooting,how to properly eat birds and frogs legs,when to applaud at the opera,how to address a letter to a marchioness("to the most honourable the marchioness of remington...")and how to properly greet household servants.
dark shadows usually got it right.a governess,tutor or companion is "miss"(miss winters)and housekeepers "miss" or "mrs."(mrs.johnson).chinese men sevants by the way are to be called by their last names,which,"chinese fashion"are given first(fu wang expects to be called "fu"). ::)
so anyways by the standards of the day it's not outrageous that it was expected that vicki would leave her job as governess once she got married.it was a postion intended for a young unmarried girl.once married it was expected that she would have her own home and children to care for.
even by 1967 standards this thinking was already a bit behing the times but d.s. opperated that way in terms of it's social mores.in some ways it's more a product of the 1950's more than the late 1960's.it being a daytime soap opera it needed to be nonoffensive to housewife friendly advertisers of products like floor wax and laundry detergent.so as outrageous as the plot was there needed to be a general air of propriety.
hence as much time as julia spent at the old house,sometimes till all hours of course,she needed to be at collinwood as the guest of elizabeth,not barnabas.it would not have been "appropriate" at the time for an unmarried lady to be living under the same roof as two men.
-
But what did everyone think about Julia being there at all hours. :D
-
Fascinating, mscbryk.
so anyways by the standards of the day it's not outrageous that it was expected that vicki would leave her job as governess once she got married.it was a postion intended for a young unmarried girl.once married it was expected that she would have her own home and children to care for.
Then by this standard, shouldn't Vicki have postponed her wedding for David's sake?
-
Thanks so much for the interesting information, Mscbryk. 8)
Sometimes I think DS in the present almost portrayed the atmosphere and attitudes of an earlier century.
-
Then by this standard, shouldn't Vicki have postponed her wedding for David's sake?
it is within the nature of the character that she would have postponed the wedding at least until this particular crisis with david had been resolved.
-
In this very proper soap opera, we saw things such as severed body parts and corpses with their eyes open, which I don't think prime time was allowed to show. Just thought I'd throw that in.
-
perhaps i should clarify what i meant.
true the show did feature violent and often gorry elements but the fact that all of this took place on the estate of a respectable dowager gave the whole thing an air of propriety that made it past the censors.i don't think the same story could have been told about a poor rural communtiy at the time.for good or bad these were a very genteel group of people for the most part.
and they were very careful about the appearance of sexual impropriety among the leads.
for instance there were several occasions where joe thought it best that he spend the night at the evans cottage rather than leaving maggie there alone.however they made a very big deal of mentioning that joe would be crashing on the couch lest the viewer get the impression that he was sleeping with his girlfriend.this mattered.
a similar thing happens when the storyline returns to the present after 1795.vicki asks maggie if she would ask her father if it's o.k. for jeff to stay in a previously unmentioned "spare room" at the evans cottage.having jeff stay in what was basically a two room shack versus having him stay at collinwood,a house with forty rooms,makes little sense until you consider that having jeff and vicki,unmarried yet romantically involved,living in the same house was not proper at the time.when sam dies jeff instictively offers to move out post haste saying it wouldn't be "right" for him to stay there any longer and maggie immediately agrees.it mattered.
and as i said no matter how late and how long julia was at the old house they almost always showed us julia...dressed,coiffed and gloved...leaving to return to collinwood at some point.it mattered.
this is all coded stuff but it mattered.the show could show decapitated bodies,blood and rotting corpses but it could not have unmarried characters of the opposite sex(at least in terms of the leads)living in the same house.
again i think that this made the outrageous plots acceptable to censors and advertisers.
-
I'm glad to get the info. that the '91 series planned to go straight to Quentin, but it confirms that they were determined to use the same old plots. Suspense is a little difficult to achieve when you know what's going to happen....
They used many of the same plot elements in the '91 series - but they combined them with many changes. A great deal of the '91 DS was completely of its own invention - and from what I've read of what was intended for the second season, that sort of invention would have continued.
-
It's that inbetween limbo nether-region that bothers me, though maybe not quite as much as totally copying the original..... I want it to be one thing or the other. I want a film to add to and enrich the original story, not replace it by saying, alright now we're doing it up right, with money, and here's how it all really happened.
It's one thing to retell Dracula, or Frankenstein, or ?... very differently. We're not invested in those stories or the characters as we are with a series. Those are basic ideas that can be presented in any number of different ways.
There has to be an equally compelling intro for Barnabas, to an audience who doesn't know him well, which is new (and continuous with original DS events)... some later, or earlier, events which are just as good an introduction as Willie and the coffin. If no one can come up with any, maybe they need to wait on doing the film. Human creativity isn't dead, even in Hollywood. To executives: Call up one of those clever creative writers you don't want to hire anymore because remakes are easier.
How about starting with BC and Ang in Martinique? Just a scene or two. Flash to Ang's big cursing scene, then ahead to new, post 1971 events? Just spitballing. Just running things up poles to see who does whatever.
-
It's that inbetween limbo nether-region that bothers me, though maybe not quite as much as totally copying the original..... I want it to be one thing or the other.
Well, you know - no matter how a remake, reimagining, etc. takes shape, there are always people who won't be satisfied with the way it's done. People complain they don't want to see the same material covered and that they want a new story with new twists and turns - but when things are changed, people complain things are not the same as the original. It's just a no-win situation. :-
I've mentioned this before, but I think the best bit of advice was contained in an article about the reimagined version of The Night Stalker: something that I wholeheartedly agree with as a general principle is the sentiment expressed in the first two paragraphs of the Creature Corner review:
"Sacrilege!" That's the usual cry when a genre classic ends up on the conveyor belt to remakesville, and all too often we spend way too much time bemoaning the ways in which the new version deviates from what we know and love, and too little time considering whether the new material stands up in its own right.
In other words, sometimes a remake isn't always a bad thing. They can honour the original and stand alone as solid entertainment at the same time.
-
That is not my attitude.