DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '02 II => Topic started by: Joeytrom on September 18, 2002, 10:21:26 PM
-
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
After not seeing Betsy Durkin for about 8 episodes, they should have used Carolyn Groves here instead. CG is going to be seen very shortly anyway. I wonder whey they brought Betsy Durkin back for this one episode.
-
On the flip side, I wonder why they bother to recast the part again for only two more episodes. They could have ended the Vicki story line right there, with Vicki's disappearance into the past with Peter. Maybe the originally DID intend to end it there, but then Dan Curtis or someone decided he wanted to go back to 1795 and write a better ending to it; Durkin may have already been let go, thus the need for a second recast. ???
-
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
After not seeing Betsy Durkin for about 8 episodes, they should have used Carolyn Groves here instead. CG is going to be seen very shortly anyway. I wonder whey they brought Betsy Durkin back for this one episode.
I agree. Carolyn Groves was by far a much better choice to play the part than B.D. was. She even seemed to resemble A.M. alittle bit, and her mannerisms were much more subdued, not so dramatic. A big difference from Betsy Durkin.
-
They could have ended the Vicki story line right there, with Vicki's disappearance into the past with Peter.
The return to 1795 was certainly not earthshattering-no pertinent information here...Good place in the story to reveal the secret of her birth...