DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '25 I => Current Talk '03 I => Topic started by: murph on April 11, 2003, 01:36:38 PM
-
Now that we're into the beginning of this new storyline, I was wondering what the rest of you think..................
I have not seen these episodes since they originally aired back in 1969, I was ten, and so far I don't remember the story at all.
Reading this forum for the last year it seems that the Leviathan storyline is one of, if not the least favorite plotline of all at least those since Jonathan Frid joined the show as Barnabas.
I was wondering if the people of this Forum think that this storyline was the beginning of the end for this show. I know that the 1897 episodes brought the show some of it's highest ratings and barely a year after that storyline ended the show was teetering on the brink of cancellation and was given the boot at the beginning of 1971.
I know that other very popular shows never recovered after introducing a storyline that their audience rejected.
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks,
Murph
-
Hi, Murph i was ten yrs old too and i don't
recall the Leviathan series either. Not sure
if was the end of the show. I'll i remember
is seeing The Q-man in the dwg room sipping
on his Brandy!!!!! YUMMY!!!!!!!!!!! :P
And then of course the vampire scenes as
well and so on. Sorry, i'm not that much of
a help . Love Anne
-
I watched the Leviathan storyline for the first time during its last airing on Sci-Fi. Have to admit, I was less than impressed - it somehow just didn't seem in the usual DS vein to me, and it was disappointing to see Barnabas back to being a baddie.
However, this time I have to admit I'm intrigued, and am sort of looking forward to seeing the storyline through. It's wonderful to see Julia again, and the rest of the 1969 gang. I'm even looking forward to seeing Jeb Hawkes! (sarcasm, anyone?) ::)
-
Other shows that never recovered from a bad storyline:
Falcon Crest: The Nazi plot (1984-1985)
Dynasty: The Moldavian massacre (1984-1985)
Dallas: Bobby's death being a dream (1985-1986)
Knots Landing: Trying to harvest energy from the sea. (1990-1991).
-
The whole Leviathan storyline really left me cold. So, if I were to pick a point where DS "jumped the shark" I would cast my vote for this. The way I saw it is they were drifting a little too much into Science Fiction and too far away from the Gothic Romance that defined the show. :-
-
I thought the shift from 1795 to the Dr. Lang/Adam story was very jarring (it seemed like a completely different show) but the show seemed to find its way again with the intro of the Quentin and Beth ghost story which of course lead to the entire 1897 saga. Once that ended it was again very jarring - a whole new show where everyone seems to be hanging around the antique shop. I think the times DS gets off track is when it strays too far from the Collins family and brings in too many outsiders.
-
"The Dark Shadows Companion" states:
"In November 1969, after nine months of some of 'Dark Shadows' most intricate, intelligent storylines, an end came to the adventures in 1897. Now the writers were faced with a dilemma....The ratings were at an all-time high. What could they do next to hold the audience? Their decision, unfortunately, signaled the beginning of the end of 'Dark Shadows'."
As for my own personal opinion, I liked the Leviathan storyline. The one I couldn't stand was the whole Adam plot. How I wished somebody would've tugged on that one, little stitch that was hanging lose and unravelled the whole thing, meaning both that annoying creature and the story.
Gerard
-
Well, I personally LOVE the Leviathans storyline, especially the first 6 weeks or so. I enjoy it because it is so different and yet also brings up some themes from previous storylines. And, unashamedly, I love it because in these first weeks, JULIA is at the center of the storyline! Some of my favorite Julia shows are the ones that are going to be broadcast in the next few weeks.
Though I hesitate to challenge the canonical statements of the Dark Shadows Companion, I strongly disagree with the statement that the Leviathans was the beginning of the end. The reality is that the ratings were dipping already during the latter half of 1897 as the story became too complicated for many who had become fans in 1968.
In 1970 the ratings went down and I think a lot of it had to do with ABC affiliates dropping the show. When the movie came out in the Summer of '70, it both stimulated interest and also horrified parents many of whom felt the series was inappropriate material for their children, based upon what they saw in the movie.
Finally, I may never be able to produce proof in print, but I do not believe that DS was canceled due to low ratings. It IS documented fact that the ratings were climbing again during the widely-viewed-as-disastrous PT 1841 storyline in 1971. I think the real reason the series ended was because Dan Curtis wanted to close it down so he could move on to other projects. There were others as well who were ready to move on--I believe Jonathan Frid, Lela Swift and the Halls among them. Also, DC was ready to film the second DS feature, and I think he preferred closing the series down to having to go through the strain of doing the movie AND running the series at the same time, as had been the case in the Spring of '70.
I'll make a separate post at some point as to why I think the Leviathan storyline should be rated as among DS' best moments...
Gothick
-
"The Dark Shadows Companion" states:
"In November 1969, after nine months of some of 'Dark Shadows' most intricate, intelligent storylines, an end came to the adventures in 1897.
Intricate? Well, maybe...if you think 'intricate' and 'chaotic' mean the same thing.
-
The writers had a golden opportunity for some real soap opera with the return of Paul Stoddard. If they had allowed for that to be separate from the Leviathan plot, it may have been better off.
-
As for my own personal opinion, I liked the Leviathan storyline. The one I couldn't stand was the whole Adam plot. How I wished somebody would've tugged on that one, little stitch that was hanging lose and unravelled the whole thing, meaning both that annoying creature and the story.
I agree. I've only seen the Leviathan episodes so far broadcasted so I don't really have an opinion, but reading summaries of the episodes makes me think this is a very interesting story. *shrug*
The ratings didn't fall that much, and they were already falling by the end of 1897 (like Gothick said). The ratings for the 1969-1970 season (Leviathans included) were about the same as 1967-1968 (with the Adam storyline), with around 16 million viewers watching. 1968-1969 (1897) had 18 million viewers. The ratings started to dip in mid-1970. ABC affiliates started to drop the show. Other 4:00PM shows [both on ABC and other networks], such as The Edge of Night and Somerset, also had that problem.
By 1970-1971, DS was ABC's #3 soap - after OLTL and GH and before AMC and A World Apart. I think that the cancellation of DS was a joint decison between ABC and DCP. I think everyone wanted to end it and move on. *shrug* I don't know if I'm imagining it, but I swear reading something where Dan Curtis said he wanted to move on from the TV show.
-
I agree that the cancellation of DS was not because the ratings. I cant see why ABC would want DS gone if it was the #3 ABC soap. Why would ABC affiliates drop it? It was still a successful show! 16 million viewers is still a good number considering that it is daytime. I read somewhere that DS reached 20 million viewers and was ABC's #1 soap in June of 1969. The ratings at the end of 1897 were probably down because the writers made the mistake of stretching it for 8 months. Now, what kind of soap viewer would want a show to drag on that much.
Dan Curtis must have been tired of the show and i dont think it would be successful if he sold it to ABC (like most ABC soaps at that time.) But, he should have finished the story in the present day 1971 and solved all the mysteries like Vicki's parents.
Its funny how we are on the topic of Cancellation. I had a dream last night that DS was cancelled because Sam Hall and Gordon Russell were having fights. kinda crazy.
-
The writers had a golden opportunity for some real soap opera with the return of Paul Stoddard. If they had allowed for that to be separate from the Leviathan plot, it may have been better off.
This aspect of Dark Shadows has always disappointed me. It would have made for some great character development and continuing storylines to have Paul Stoddard be an integral part of the show. I would have loved to see the writers explore the relationship dynamics between Paul Stoddard and Elizabeth, Roger, and Carolyn. The writers seemed to focus so much on the supernatural they forgot about the human side. Jonathan Frid said in an interview(on one of the videos) that the show just ran out of gas. Well, if they didn't put the pedal to the metal and took time to develop the characters the show would have had more natural plot development which would have been character driven and not plot driven.
-
Jonathan Frid said that he didn't want to play Barnabas Collins anymore, so they created Bramwell/1841 PT to accomodate him.
DC really depended on him to carry the ratings for the show. If he knew DS was to be cancelled in April 1971, perhaps he could have let JF leave DS and after 1840 ends, return the show to 1971 and tie up looses ends for the next three months.
-
I could be completely misremembering here, but it seems to me that I was listening to the Grayson interview tape from 1973, and she corrected a fan who said she had read that JF no longer wanted to play Barnabas.
According to Grayson, what he refused to do was play a vampire any longer.
I've wondered whether this would explain how little of an "active" vampire Barnabas was during his final months in 1840 (up to the final "miracle" cure of course). I know that JF used to get annoyed when the fans would play clips of the show at the Festivals and they often included a montage of all the different bite scenes.
Best wishes,
Gothick
-
Hi all! While the Leviathan storyline is not one of my favorites, I do enjoy it. I always love when they go back to the past (my favorite being 1840), but I am glad to be back in the present day. The Leviathan story arc is one where some days I absolutely love the episodes, but other days, I am wanting to just move on with the show.
Now, the storyline that really bothers me is 1970 PT, as well as 1841 PT. I just don't like when all the characters we know suddenly change.
-Lindsey
On a factual note, the term Leviathan is actually from the Bible. Leviathans were ancient sea creatures in the Old Testament.
-
I've always enjoyed Leviathan as well, something Gothick and I have cackled over together in the past. Although there is a lot of wigginess (and contradictions as far as plot points established only a few episodes before are concerned), I think it's a lot of fun. One of the tapes from MPI features about every monster DS ever dreamed up ... the werewolf, a vampire (or two or three), a witch, a ghost, a Leviathan ... etc etc. I always enjoy the storylines set in the present more than those set in the past (even 1795, which was, as far as I'm concerned, the quintessential DS storyline), and it's fun seeing everyone at Collinwood possessed by some diabolical ancient evil.
Plus Angelique gets to be ultra-cool when she finally returns, all powered up with dark mojo and ready to kick some Leviathan ass. She has two fantastic confrontations with Nicholas Blair that I always relish. "At the risk of sounding ... banal ... it's a small world, idn't it?" Hee hee.
Nicky
-
I agree that the cancellation of DS was not because the ratings. I cant see why ABC would want DS gone if it was the #3 ABC soap. Why would ABC affiliates drop it? It was still a successful show! 16 million viewers is still a good number considering that it is daytime.
I wonder if there was a "backlash" against the popularity of DS as one of the reasons for affiliates dropping the show. Back in the mid-70's, I was a "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" fan. A syndicated soap opera comedy spoof created by Norman Lear, it became a wildly successful national phenomenon. In many ways, its popularity because of its quirky uniqueness mirrored Dark Shadows. Eventually, the ratings did slip, but it still remained popular and profitable, yet local networks began to drop it. I remember when our local channel stopped airing it without any warning (it came on at 10:30 at night). A representative from the station appeared, saying in a rather stern, harsh and angry voice some very reactionary things about MH2 and that it would no longer be carried. Just a week before, the network ran commercials promoting the comedy soap, cashing in on the popularity, and then suddenly it became a pariah. It was just total and swift backlash. (Remember how quickly disco vanished? One day, everyone's dancing to the Bee-Gee's, and the next day they're burning their records.)
So quite possibly the affiliate cancellations of Dark Shadows had much to do with popularity backlash. Human nature is weird that way - one minute it's "cool" to be a part of a phenomenon, and the next it's "cool" to bash it. Everyone wants to be in the vanguard of what's "hip".
Gerard (Who remembers bubble-umbrellas, one of the most sensible things ever to come onto the market, but which quickly vanished because they were considered a popular "fad", and not something practicle.)
-
I think what happened is that shows just run out of ideas.
after a while happens to all the popular shows(Law & Order
seems be one that has endured)La Law is one as well as Dallas,
and more. It gets to be how much more can you do to these people?
jennifer
some parts of this storyline i liked and i agree with Lindsey!
i hated !970PT!
-
Possible spoilers below.
The Leviathans plot had more than its share of creative gaffes, but on the whole, I hold it in higher regard than most. For one thing, we weren't able to get DS where I lived until 1969, and when I was finally able to start watching the show regularly, the Leviathans episodes were just beginning. Having only seen DS sporadically up to that point, with no real sense of its continuity (such as it was), as far as I was concerned, the storyline was business as usual.
Personally I was thrilled to see Barnabas as a bad guy, and to this day, I still prefer to see his wicked side rear its ugly head. When he's just an out and out good guy, he's just this side of impotent, figuratively speaking. He's too powerful a character to be reduced to such infuriating indecisiveness and/or dependence on Julia. His presence as a formidable force seemed to decrease over the run of the show, as more and more we see him wringing his hands and wondering what the hell to do. I'm not saying he should be a total monster, as during his debut; but when he shows cunning, quick-wittedness, and the ability to act--even if it's evil or amoral--he's all that much more "heroic." Or anti-heroic, if one prefers.
There was a distinctly eerie quality about the mystery of the noisy thing in the antique shop. As a kid, the heavy breathing behind the door scared the hell out of me; even now, unknown noises are one of the things that can still give me a case of the creeps. At age ten, I was unaware of the (marginal) connection to Lovecraft, but the Leviathans did manage to touch some of the same nerves that Lovecraft did in later years. The emphasis on a distinctly supernatural threat worked well for me then and still does.
I've got a soft spot for evil zombies, too. So when Jeb summoned up a bunch of dead guys to walk around, that really fired up my youthful sense of dread. Watching it all these years later, it hardly has a similar effect, but I still enjoy seeing what really terrified me in those days. While it may have not come off all that well dramatically, in spirit, it was just the ticket.
I have always enjoyed the return of Paul Stoddard. Dennis Patrick was so damn good, even as a kid I was moved by his relationship with Carolyn and took his death as a real tragedy. Also, Barnabas and Angelique coming together again in the way they did was a stroke of brilliance. There was some honest-to-God DS excellence in this storyline.
Sadly, the Leviathans episodes were also marred by really terrible elements, too numerous to mention. I never thought Jeb Hawkes was much of a character. No self-respecting, murderous, half-human spawn of the Great Old Ones would turn into such a wuss. That's not to denigrate Chris Pennock's acting--he's one of my favorites--but the script they gave him was usually awful. And Sky Rumson... hoo boy. I need a Pepcid.
--Mark
-
The writers had a golden opportunity for some real soap opera with the return of Paul Stoddard. If they had allowed for that to be separate from the Leviathan plot, it may have been better off.
They could have built up suspense and made the return of Paul Stoddard a big explosion. They focus too much on the supernatural and stir away from elements that make a soap opera a soap opera.
-
Someone mentioned that the word Leviathan is found in the Bible. I was fascinated recently to catch a clip from a late Sixties documentary on a certain well-known Satanist circle in California (the leader reportedly portrayed the Devil in the film Rosemary's Baby, managing to get an awful lot of fright mileage out of a cheap lizard suit), and was surprised to hear the Evil One addressed in one of the incantations as "Leviathan." I've often wondered whether one of the writers might have seen this documentary in an East Village art house showing and drawn upon that experience for naming the latest new Ghoul on the series.
One of the few clues that we get as to how the writers viewed the metaphysical existence of the Leviathans is a throw-away line by Angelique that they're "creatures of the Underworld." Sadly, like so much else that appears in this story, the idea is never really developed.
Gothick
-
I think the beginning of 1897 was the superlative moment in writing and acting on the show. I loved the Collins sibling rivalry . . ; Laura's wicked presence, Carl's whiney shenanigans, Judith's command and control. . . they could've kept that up a whole LOT longer instead of vering off into Petofi land. . that was the weak link although I luv Thayer. . .they shoulda kept him as Sandor and had him i dunno became a vampire and betray Magda. .that woulda been fireworks unimaginable. . . . I've only seen a few Leviathan eps courtesy of Gothik . . .so i look forward to seeing more, if my 'connection' for video taping works while i'm stuck in cable-limbo-land, e.g. lower Manhattan.
-
I'm not a fan of the Leviathan story. Sorry. I'm just not. The arc brings us, among other things, the return of Ms McKechnie (and her character's numerous 8 x 10 framed photographs of herself), the inept Geoffrey Scott, the further misadventures of Chris and Sabrina, a prop from a community theatre version of Little Shop of Horrors,and the cheap, insufferable pig (who I did like later, in subsequent plots).
On the positive end of things, we also get Chris Bernau, Marie Wallace, Camilla Ashland, Elizabeth Eis (mangled accent and all), Julia, and several others . . .
However, I think the show was on a downward swing from the second half of 1897 on.
I'm not saying there aren't some great moments and some really dynamite performances going on. There are.
But the pacing (never the show's strong point) got way out of whack. The writing was all over the place. They made some odd, and not particularly good, choices.
-
I've never understood this comment about the Leviathan ratings spelling the end of the show. I mean, we're barely half-way through the run of the series!
I was greatly intrigued with the Leviathan storyline up until the end. I liked the return of an evil Barnabas (and appreciate Frid's acting transformation here) and though I'm not much of a sci-fi person, I still found the Leviathan idea interesting. Later on, I felt everything hit rock bottom -- on many levels, including the acting and directing; it seemed like the show completely fell apart. (Will strive to keep my comments less acerbic this time round, though!)
In reviewing the entire scope of the show, I personally rank the next storyline, 1970 PT, below Leviathan overall, as well as the Adam storyline, and possibly something else I'm forgetting, below Leviathan. A story I started on Angelique is set during Leviathan, so this storyline, while not one of my favorites by a long shot, still provided the perfect setting and situation for my imagination ...
The show certainly recovered (whether from my perceived low point, or from low ratings ...) ... and among several more storylines to go, we still have the greatest storyline of all to look forward to -- 1840! (A bit of editorializing there, I'll grant.)
:D
-
On the positive end of things, we also get Chris Bernau, Marie Wallace, Camilla Ashland, Elizabeth Eis (mangled accent and all), Julia, and several others . . .
Amen! Chris and Marie were great together. Elizabeth Eis'
Buffy Harrington is one of my favorite minor characters, and I was thrilled to be able to tell Ms. Eis that in person at the 1994 Festival :)
-
Personally I was thrilled to see Barnabas as a bad guy, and to this day, I still prefer to see his wicked side rear its ugly head.
Oh yeah! Me too. Compared with the beginning of the series, Frid seems more confident being evil now. I love the things he's doing with his eyes, those weird flashes he does when talking Carolyn out of knocking boots with Chris and watching the Todds disappear up his staircase at the Old House.
As for Julia, yes, it's sad how he's treating her, but hey she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. Besides, I think there's a side of her that sorta likes it. :-*
Boy Kading, who still longs for bubble umbrellas, wax lips and space food sticks
-
So quite possibly the affiliate cancellations of Dark Shadows had much to do with popularity backlash. Human nature is weird that way - one minute it's "cool" to be a part of a phenomenon, and the next it's "cool" to bash it. Everyone wants to be in the vanguard of what's "hip".
This makes excellent sense to me Gerard - in relation to DS and the other topics you mentioned (all of which I am plenty old enough to recall ::) ). I always thought how awful it must be when perfomers are branded with the title "Teen Idol" early in their career. It must be a really lopsided bittersweet experience. On the one hand big money and popularity really fast. On the other hand, it wouldn't take much research to realize how this would no doubt affect the future of your career. After the smoke clears, they're left hanging until if/when they can interest someone in their nostalgia potential.
-
I suspect that truly talented people will manage to find a way around the "Teen Idol" kiss of death. If what they REALLY want is to be an actor, and not a "STAR" then all they have to do is be willing to work...whatever and wherever it is. Indie films, plays, other countries.....just keep plugging away, learning their craft, sharpening their skills. If they're VERY hard working and just a bit lucky they'll grow into old character actors whose obituaries take pages.
If, on the other hand, it's all about the fame and the money.....well, being an over-exposed young star is one of the worst ways to go about it!
-
One of the biggest surprises to me was to learn that not all actors dream of fame partly because they see that sometimes the cost of fame is some freedoms that mean much to them professionally and personally. Many people in the "arts" just want enough recognition either publicly or among peers to get enough to work to live happily on and be happy doing what they love.
IMO, there are more downsides to being famous or a "teen idol" kinda popularity than pluses.
Nancy
-
I wouldn't in the least mind being rich.....but I've always thought being famous must be a particularly horrible ring in Dante's Hell.
-
As for Julia, yes, it's sad how he's treating her, but hey she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. Besides, I think there's a side of her that sorta likes it. :-*
So are you suggesting our Dr Hoffman has a S&M fetish going on? She likes to be dominated since she has to be so strong being a female doctor in the 60s? 8) Who can see Julia in leather and carrying a whip but . .. then that would mean she's the Dominatrix. . .hmmm. . .
-
So are you suggesting our Dr Hoffman has a S&M fetish going on? She likes to be dominated since she has to be so strong being a female doctor in the 60s? 8) Who can see Julia in leather and carrying a whip but . .. then that would mean she's the Dominatrix. . .hmmm. . .
I'm just saying that much like Morrissey (ex-lead singer of The Smiths) she wants "the one [she] can't have".
But you introduce a new wrinkle that I hadn't considered. You may have something there. Not sure B. would go for it though. Remember, he's only *pretending* to be British.
(Actually The Smiths are the perfect soundtrack for Dark Shadows. Very maudlin, morbid and full of self-loathing. And yet kinda catchy.)
-
>>I suspect that truly talented people will manage to find a way around the "Teen Idol" kiss of death. If what they REALLY want is to be an actor, and not a "STAR" then all they have to do is be willing to work...<<
I agree. I guess getting carried away with your own popularity to the point that you no longer feel you have to work at something is a fairly legitimate natural selection process in itself. [idontknow]
-
I guess getting carried away with your own popularity to the point that you no longer feel you have to work at something is a fairly legitimate natural selection process in itself.
Oh excellent, Castlebee......VERY well put. I just might change "popularity" to "ego" and start using your phrase on a few people I know!!! :D (I'll be sure to give you credit!!) ;)
-
One of the biggest surprises to me was to learn that not all actors dream of fame partly because they see that sometimes the cost of fame is some freedoms that mean much to them professionally and personally. Many people in the "arts" just want enough recognition either publicly or among peers to get enough to work to live happily on and be happy doing what they love.
So true. Many actors act because that's what they need to do -- call it a drive, a compulsion, a need to create ... (very similar to writers, come to think of it). Other people -- some of them actors, some not -- have a drive to be famous or be "stars." The two should not be confused, though of course there is some overlap in some cases, especially with "Hollywood" actors!
On a side note, I've never understood the desperate desire so many people seem to have to "be on TV" -- people who will do whatever they can -- including betrayal of others, self-debasement, airing of dirty laundry, whatever -- to get on TV.
-
On a side note, I've never understood the desperate desire so many people seem to have to "be on TV" -- people who will do whatever they can -- including betrayal of others, self-debasement, airing of dirty laundry, whatever -- to get on TV.
No kidding, Vlad. I absolutely cannot watch shows like Jerry Springer, Judge Judy, etc. etc. etc., in which colorful examples of anthropomorphic compost come on to spar with each other. Apparently there's a huge audience for this sort of thing, but I've never understood the desire to watch others grossly debase themselves; as long as people do, though, such idgits have a guaranteed forum. Sad thing is, I bet a lot of viewers who might run into some of that dreck in the street would actually look up to them for having been on THAT SHOW!
Oy vey.
--Mark
-
How about those chicks on the daytime talk shows that are there with a kid and a handful of guys to have paternity tests run on? Play find out who is the daddy on national tv. What about them? Gads. I have been stuck sitting through Maury more than once while that was happening, not by choice, but because it was on when a group of friends and I were working on a quilt that was to be a gift to another friend, and one woman just had to have that on.
Could not get over those chicks...funniest one was some ho who had about 6 guys there to be tested and none was the father, so she asked if she could come back with some more in the future.
-
I only watched one of those paternity shows once, and it was the saddest thing I ever saw. I don't know the circumstances as to why the test was being done, but there was a young man, young woman,(wife?), and their 18mos old son. Anyway, the guy was hoping with all his heart he was the Dad. Well, it turned out he wasn't. He just sat there, didn't rail on the woman. Just sat there and stared at the little boy with tears streaming down his face. He loved that little boy and wanted so much to find out he was indeed the father. It broke my heart to watch it. That's about all I remember, it was a few years ago. I really hate the network for airing that. It was very cruel.
I know that the guests went on of their own free will, but I truly believe the young man never thought that the little boy wouldn't be his. And for the network to continue to air his grief, and the hostess (Jenny I think) to continue to nag him with questions (I think he finally bolted the set) was almost beyond cruel. I've never watched them again. Never ceases to amaze me how twisted the world can be and it's become primo TV fare.
Always, Minja [dsapy][/color]
-
I only watched one of those paternity shows once, and it was the saddest thing I ever saw. there was a young man, young woman,(wife?), and their 18mos old son. Anyway, the guy was hoping with all his heart he was the Dad. Well, it turned out he wasn't. face. He loved that little boy and wanted so much to find out he was indeed the father.
18 months of loving and raising that little boy? In my book he *was* the dad, will always be the dad, and a far more fit parent than the mother.
n
-
Let's hope someone introduced that young man to a damned good lawyer. Children are human beings, not property. Parents are responsible adults, not 'rightful owners'.
Of course, on shows like that, it's usually fair to assume there isn't a 'responsible adult' within a hundred miles.
In our house we have a code word for families like that....we look at one another and say 'goldfish'....which is shorthand for 'some people shouldn't be allowed to raise goldfish, much less children'. Unfortunately, we use it fairly often..
-
18 months of loving and raising that little boy? In my book he *was* the dad, will always be the dad, and a far more fit parent than the mother.
That's right! The saddest part is that there are so many young girls out there who thought they probably found the right one and then make the mistake of getting pregnant only to have the guy run off on them.
Then you have these other ones like you mentioned who sleep with every Tom, Dick & Harry and then manage to find these decent guys who are willing to do everything for them, including raising kids who aren't their own!
That young woman should be counting her blessings, not complaining on TV!
The worst one I've seen was with this bratty know it all 14 year old girl who had already been arrested numerous times for prostituting herself, shoplifting and selling drugs. Along with her was her poor pathetic mother who just couldn't understand how her lovely little girl wound up like this. During the whole show the kid kept cussing her mother out and the mother said she even physically abused her several times and showed everyone her bruises to prove it. Then all of a sudden Jenny Jones brings out a "suprise" guest who just happens to be the mother's own sister who claims the child's mother was even worse!! By the time that show ended it was more like a three ring circus with everyone shouting obcenities at one another.
I can't believe people would actually lower themselves on television like that. I mean "HELLO" haven't they ever heard of the phase "what goes around comes around?!" The whole thing made me sick to my stomach and that was the last time I ever watched any of those shows. [puke]
Cassandra[/font]
-
sheenasma wrote
18 months of loving and raising that little boy? In my book he *was* the dad, will always be the dad, and a far more fit parent than the mother.
You are so right.
raineypark wrote
In our house we have a code word for families like that....we look at one another and say 'goldfish'....which is shorthand for 'some people shouldn't be allowed to raise goldfish, much less children'. Unfortunately, we use it fairly often..
To mangle a line Keeanu Reeves had in the movie Parenthood....You have to have a license to drive a car, catch a fish, own a dog...but any **** can raise a child.
I love your goldfish line and now plan to steal it and use it quite often. I work at a store in a mall, the phrase will be well used before the day is through.[/color]
Always, Minja[/color]
-
All I can say about those shows and the people who take part are they are the lowest of low. I also have no use for the "reality" TV. This does not say very much for the American viewing public. Hope I didn't step on anyones toes.
Birdie
-
besides the things noted above on these shows that are sad
what is with the Spinger show and these weird creatures(only word for them) stripping down to nothing and women showing their breasts for string of tacky beads! :owhat is going on in this world that people
love this stuff ! makes me fear for the future generation!
jennifer
-
I get the biggest kick out of these shows. The best source of comedy on TV, IMHO.
Low-life dom [toilet]
-
I get the biggest kick out of these shows. The best source of comedy on TV, IMHO.
Nothing personal, Dom, but this is what bothers the hell out of me. The fact that people can derive such amusement from real-life idiocy is an alien concept to me; as far as I'm concerned, taking delight in the misfortunes of others, whether they bring it on themselves or not--and blatantly advertising it on TV--is base and degrading and makes me no more worthy of respect than the ones putting themselves in front of the camera. Stupid and foolish people are around us all the time, and I don't need to see more of them on television. Exhibitionist TV reinforces our natural baser tendencies, and I'm very uncomfortable with that; if I'm laughing at people wrecking their own lives and others' in front of millions of viewers, whatever compassion I might have for people suffering real misfortune is being undermined, subtly or perhaps not-so-subtly. I find very little funny about stupidity unless it's the Three Stooges. I know to each his own, and I guess some people have the wisdom to be able to separate themselves from the crap around them and uphold the better part of their character, but perhaps I don't. I'm better off avoiding supporting such exploitative crap lest I fall into depression at the inherent idiocy of our species.
--Mark
-
Bravo, Mark!!!
I also NEVER watch shows like that. I put them in the same catagory as women-hating lyrics to Rap Music: another thing to diminish the quality of my and more importantly, my daughter's life.
It's the fact that we actually have to live in the same world with these people. Dysfunctional families aren't amusing. They're tragic and dangerous and sometimes deadly. They can make an entire neighborhood miserable witnesses to their pathetic lives. Providing them with a way to show off on the most powerful medium in the world only encourages some people to engage in ever more loathsome behaviour.
I have a hard time imagining how much more base American televison can possibly become.
-
I saw that Springer show once and it looked like it was all staged. There were two women arguing about something, then they started fighting as if on cue. Then these guys came on to pull them apart. It gave a strong impression of being a set-up -- like those wrestling shows.
::)
Hi Dom [wavey]
(you low-life you)
:-*
-
It gave a strong impression of being a set-up -- like those wrestling shows.
WHAT?!?!
;D
That's another thing. I've haven't watched any of these shows enough to judge very well, but I also have to wonder how much is real and how much is phony. Doesn't change much; in my book, it still fails as legitimate entertainment.
I will say this: I did watch the Jerry Springer movie, whatever it was called, a few years ago. Springer himself can be rather amusing, and the movie was pretty funny, being something of a satire of the whole business--although at the end, the preachy justification for his type of show was an absolute non-argument; all it did was point to "respectable" journalism as an example of the same type of pandering to people's voyeuristic tendencies. The examples he used no more apply to my way of thinking as his own program.
And no, I am not a fan of pro wrestling. ;)
--Mark
-
Hi Dom [wavey]
(you low-life you)
:-*
[sssh]
Not now, Con, I'm watching Roller Derby! [wink2]
-
I've only seen a few minutes of these shows here and there while changing channels, and have paused just to see if I was seeing/hearing right. You'd think they would have exhausted all the conceivable freak-show topics by now.
But just thought I'd mention that it has appeared to me that the people were reciting lines they had rehearsed... are they professional actors? ::) That I would greatly doubt. But as Connie said, some of the shows do look staged and well-orchestrated.
-
They should have something like Julia and Angelique getting into a cat fight on Jerry Springer. YOU know -- Julia could break a chair over her head or something.
LAFB was watching the Ricki Lake show a few weeks ago and thought they should have the dysfunctional Collins family on. Edward, Judith, Quentin, Pansy, the good Reverend, etc. Oh yeah - Barnabas too. I can see it all now. ROFL
OR, they could have the present day family. It could be about sending David to boot camp.
[grinb]
-
I thought the shift from 1795 to the Dr. Lang/Adam story was very jarring (it seemed like a completely different show) but the show seemed to find its way again with the intro of the Quentin and Beth ghost story which of course lead to the entire 1897 saga. Once that ended it was again very jarring - a whole new show where everyone seems to be hanging around the antique shop. I think the times DS gets off track is when it strays too far from the Collins family and brings in too many outsiders.
You said it for me Julian! In the beginning of this leviathan storyline I couldn't get into it because of the big change from 1897 to this. Now however Im finally starting to follow it, well, at least Im trying to!
Deb
-
On the Jump the Shark website, a lot of folks voted for the Leviathans as the moment DS Jumped. . if folks haven't read the posts there, they are quite funny and endearing. . i remember one guy writing about the New England lady doctor with the perfectly applied liquid eyeliner lighting her cigarette in a candle holder and that he was hooked from that moment. . . :D
Also, Gothick mentioned:
There were others as well who were ready to move on--I believe Jonathan Frid, Lela Swift and the Halls among them.
I remembering reading (or listening) in a GH interview that a year after the show was off the air, Sam was getting nervous cuz Grayson wasn't working. Her thought, "I have been working straight for nearly five years!" (which is really uncommon for a theatrical actor).
Of course I also think, gee Sam how ungrateful can ya be, she saved your ass. . .got a job for herself then got you a job. . so you didn't have to move to Ohio. . .lighten up!
-
The death of Paul Stoddard episode is where things really go downhill.
Nicholas Blair as the leader is a retcon of the Leviathan origins. The writers were in a hole they could not get out of.
-
Nicholas Blair as the leader is a retcon of the Leviathan origins. The writers were in a hole they could not get out of.
Gee, ya think? [lghy]
As great as it is to see him again, and as much as I love NB and the way HAA plays him, given what's come before - not only within Leviathans, but during the summer/fall '68 storyline - Nicholas' placement in this story is stupefyingly ridiculous. Apparently the writers had hoped the audience would be so happy to see NB as not to realize that. But guess again. ::)
-
A random thought...
I wasn't intellectually inclined watching the show as a kid, so nothing ever phased me as being ludicrous during the original run (what parts of it I did see). While watching the entire series on tape in the 90s (those were the days!) the ludicrous-ness of the post-arrival of Barn eps was kind of disheartening. What always ended up "saving the day" was the reintroduction of old adversaries. I actually jumped up from the sofa and did a victory dance around the coffe table when Sky revealed the portrait of his wife to Julia.
After five eps of Levi. I stoped watching - busy-ness, vacations, etc. But to be totally honest a big part of me just can't bare the thought of trying to catch up to the current eps. Hopefully my busy-ness will somewhat subside and enable me to run a few personal DS marathons, so I can be current. I do love some of the Leviathan "moments".
Maybe it is due to preoccupation, but I found the few eps I did watch boring as hell, and the evil pre-vamp Levi. Barn made me want to turn the TV off. I just couldn't bare to watch Frid in that role without wanting to scream. Talk about ludicrous. You know it's time to stop when you want to strangle the actors and the writers.
Whew! Glad to get that off my chest. Now I think I am ready to schdule my first Marathon. After all, it is Friday night and there is no DS airing Monday. Hopefully I'll have a better DS attitude by Tuesday morning...
dom
-
On the Jump the Shark website, a lot of folks voted for the Leviathans as the moment DS Jumped. . if folks haven't read the posts there, they are quite funny and endearing. . i remember one guy writing about the New England lady doctor with the perfectly applied liquid eyeliner lighting her cigarette in a candle holder and that he was hooked from that moment. . . :D
I love Jump the Shark! Some of the people on there have the funniest comments, lol.
The Leviathan storyline is..er..starting to drag on for me. I haven't watched Friday's episodes yet because of that. The entire thing with Paul Stoddard dragged on for so long, imo, and it was getting boring. But the entire Philip-did-it thing is absurd. It makes no sense to me at all. And Christopher Pennock...ugh. Thank God he improves by 1840. The Carolyn/Jeb relationship is boring me. I want Tony back. Heck, I'd take Buzz back if it'd mean getting rid of Jeb. *sigh*
It used to be where DS was the first thing I watched when I got home out of the three programs I timer tape (DS, Dynasty, Ryan's Hope), but now because of the Leviathan storyline I always watch DYN, and sometimes RH before it. *sigh* This happened during the Adam storyline too. Oh well. At least this storyline marks Roger Davis' departure from the show (thank God).
However, I really liked the last scene of Thursday's episodes where Barnabas was putting all that flammable liquid on the floor. I don't know why, but it struck me as being really funny, lol.
-
Someone recently said...about Leviathan storyline that on Jump the shark's site...
I had never heard of this (you people do get around!)
So, since I'm sick and it's cold and raining (gee, what a novelty, every weekend since April) and there's nothing on TV...I went to this site.
Okay, I put in One Day At A Time....oh man...the 'posters' there are mean (but I was laughing/cracking up).
Okay...perhaps I'll collect myself now.
Patti
go on...look!!
-
The Leviathan plot isn't working for me really. I've skimmed through a couple of episodes, but it's blah, blah, blah. "My Chris Pennock is wearing a lot of eyeliner" blah, blah, blah. What else is on?
Elizabeth Eis' brief episode was interesting viewing though. I'm not sure where I heard this before (here? maybe Gothick or Nicky?) but someone once said that they got the feeling that she'd probably killed Momma and Poppa before heading up the other side of the Mason-Dixon to go fight for the Leviathan Cause.
-
I always have mixed feelings about the Leviathan jaunt - I've never bought it as the complete turkey it's purported to be, but I think that it just came at a time when the overall nature of the show was shifting, along with its priorities.
For example, I'd say that most of 1968 is just as silly and illogical, and in great chunks just as dull. I think the real problem lies in the increasing shift to plot-driven drama, and perhaps a general boredom with the present day scenario.
One of the problems with 1897 long-term was that it went on way too long - it really did disrupt the present-day continuity in a way that 1795 didn't. Part of me wishes that they'd simply stayed in 1897 and built a new show from there - I think they had generally had a community of characters of equal quality, and the Victorian backdrops fitted the show's ambience in a way that a miss-mash of Gothic meets Orhbach's never could...
The one thing Leviathan gets totally right is demonising Barnabas - the nice guy thing had really worn thin for me and it was an ideal way to extend the character (bear in mind that a lot of the viewers wouldn't have been watching the initial Barnabas story). In many respects, Barnabas the villain was enough story - and it was a better starting point than the abstract Lovecraft rip-offs. In 1967, Barnabas was electrifying - he was dangerous, a plausible liar, an arch manipulator, beyond trust - he just made for great storytelling. If they could have recaptured half of that essence, it could have been amazing.
The problem was that the main attraction became lost amidst a fairly underdeveloped story that didn't really use its characters - which brings me to plot. There seems to be a real disparity between being true to the dramatic situation and giving the audience a perceived want... Take Quentin for example - In 1897 he had purpose and drive, but in the present he simply has nothing to do and meanders. He should not have been reintroduced without a proper story or purpose, and it damages both the character and show in the process.
Likewise, there seems to be a lack of faith and enthusiasm for the story itself - characters chop and change roles as the story demands and you lose a sense of immediacy and belief. Admidst this major loss of faith comes a bunch of dodgy additions aiming for nostalgia - Nick Blair, Angelique's bizarre Samantha Stephens-esque jaunt into suburbia, etc. And while this is going on, the writers seem to miss huge opportunities to get the audience back on track.
Carolyn's wedding always bugged me - weddings are such a soap staple, easy money in the bank. It irritated and disappointed me so much that one of the original characters was married off so forgettably with zero emotion or romance whatsoever - a real case of DS forgetting that it's a soap opera. A week-long wedding story, with some genuine happiness, with the threat of darkness lurking beneath the surface, could have been fantastic I think...
Leviathan is a story I want to love in spite of myself. Beneath all the mistakes there were some major opportunities, but they're lost amidst a lack of conviction - if there's one thing the story lacks creativity, it's joy. It seemed to have stopped being fun for the makers, and inevitably, viewers usually follow suit.
-
Stuart...you said a mouthful.
The one thing I might take exception to would be the "Samantha Stephens-esque" of Ang; her 'raison d'etre' was always to be "loved as a woman"; ergo, a "man" would have wanted a Stepford wife.
Not to mention, with Sky 'comfortable', Ang would've become more domestic....she of COURSE couldn't of stayed that way...but it would be quite fun.
Agree whole-heartedly with what you said about 1968 being dull, silly and illogical. And, it's sad but true about they didn't seem to know what to do with 'real and present' Quentin.
You hit the nail on the head about the wedding!! (I hadn't thought of it...a wedding on a soap is HUGE!!)
And it wouldn't be just any wedding....CAROLYN "KITTEN" COLLINS STODDARD....
Thanks Stuart,
Patti
-
Very much agreed, Stuart. Very concise post, and very similar to my own view of the Leviathan episodes. It was the first DS story I began watching regularly, and from the scattered prior episodes I'd seen as a kid, I had no real concept of what had been going on before. Far as I was concerned at the time, this was DS as it was meant to be. That's probably why it still has a warm place in my heart.
-
as a kid, I had no real concept of what had been going on before. Far as I was concerned at the time, this was DS as it was meant to be.
How unfortunate for your childhood, Mark, for THAT to have been your first perception of DS. But I suppose it explains so much. [supergrin]
-
How unfortunate for your childhood, Mark, for THAT to have been your first perception of DS.
Perhaps not. Being a bit older and none the wiser when I got to see the rest of it, I think I perhaps appreciated it a bit more. ;)
But I suppose it explains so much. [supergrin]
Explain THIS, buddy....
[supergrin]
--Mark
-
The Leviathins was neither the best nor the worst of DS.
The return of Quentin & Amanda was a good story, & there were some genuinely creepy moments in the antique shop. Julia's frustration at Barnabas' emotional distance was very well acted. Paul Stoddard's lack of a developed character was a major missed oppurtunity, and all scenes featuring ultra-hip Jeb(Pennock, a fine actor, was much better as later characters) and/or the heavy
breathing green slime were laughable.
What really killed the show, I think, was the alienating 1970PT story, which truly was a different show that had no connection at all to the stories & characters we loved. More damage was done in 1840, which began well but had too many plot holes and no real conclusion. 10 brilliant episodes in 1995 & a somewhat creepy summer of 1970 were not enough to recover from these two fatal mistakes.
-
The Leviathins was neither the best nor the worst of DS.
Here on the forum we truly believe that no one DS fan's opinion carries any more or less weight than any others. But when one culls together several hundred of those opinions, well, it might paint a different picture. So, bearing that in mind, by the time the Members' Archive comes back online, hopefully you'll have amassed enough posts to gain access to it (members need to make 50 posts first) so that you can check out the results from a 1998 online event (hosted by Diana Millay for the now defunct Dark Shadows Online forum on AOL) called The Brandies (a sort of DS version of the Academy Awards). Through a lengthy process of preliminary and then final voting, several hundred online DS fans got to choose their favorites/least favorites in categories ranging from the sublime (Favorite Actor & Actress) to the ridiculous (the 'Mr. Juggins Award' for Favorite Wooden Performance & Favorite Severed Body Part) - and given your statement above, the overwhelming result of the Least Favorite Storyline might surprise you. ;)
-
But I suppose it explains so much. [supergrin]
Explain THIS, buddy....
[supergrin]
Now, Mark, where would the fun be in that? [evilg]
(But I swear it wasn't meant as an insult. After all, I haven't forgotten how smitten you are with me and Midnite. And I can assure you that you'll always hold a warm place in our hearts as well. :-* [wink2])
-
What really killed the show, I think, was the alienating 1970PT story, which truly was a different show that had no connection at all to the stories & characters we loved. More damage was done in 1840, which began well but had too many plot holes and no real conclusion. 10 brilliant episodes in 1995 & a somewhat creepy summer of 1970 were not enough to recover from these two fatal mistakes.
Oops - forgot to mention that I couldn't disagree with you more about these two storylines. I might be in the minority when it comes to 1970PT but I LOVE it, and one of the things that makes it so special for me is the very fact that there are just so many alternate characterizations of our favorite characters (not to mention the Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca-esque overtones). I champion 1970PT just as much as the Leviathans lovers do that period on the show (I actually can't wait until we get our first glimpse in episode #969 on June 5th). And while 1840 doesn't rank as high as 1897 or 1795/96 do on my list, IMO it has way too many wonderful things about it to be easily discounted. But then, disagreement over the DS storylines and defending/berating them with fellow fans is at least half the fun of forums like this, so I can already see from your brief time posting that you're going to be a much welcomed addition to the family. [thumb]
-
Whenever I think DS is starting to get a tad 'blahish,' a great episode or two airs. Like yesterday. Yesterday's episodes were great. I love it when Angelique is on during this storyline and I was so glad that Jeb wasn't on.
I've noticed that online a lot of people seem to dislike this storyline, and I can sorta see why because it definately isn't one of my favorites. One of my friends watched DS occasionally during last summer [during the beginning of the present day 1968 storyline, and I think some of late 1795] and whenever I mention the Leviathans when I talk to her about what's going on the show, she often goes 'oh..those people that ruined the show?'. I guess it's reputation precedes it.
-
MB...I too am waiting for PT....love the 'sisters' [devil]
Thayer David's portrayal blows me away....I can't BELIEVE he'd do that!!!
Off course, not even the spoiler thing will make me tell of the best part
G.H. aka J.H. aka HOFFMAN dah dah DAH DAAAH!!!!!
oh wait....my actual fav is:
[spoiler]CAROLYN'S HAIR!!! meow purr purr[/spoiler]
Patti
-
Speaking of Carolyn's hair ...
Jeb's continual mauling of Carolyn's blonde tresses (could it have been a "fall"?) is such a stomach-turner ... I think he's only done it a couple of times so far, but just wait ... If you think Roger Davis touched his own hair a little too often ...
::)
-
Oops - forgot to mention that I couldn't disagree with you more about these two storylines. I might be in the minority when it comes to 1970PT but I LOVE it, and one of the things that makes it so special for me is the very fact that there are just so many alternate characterizations of our favorite characters (not to mention the Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca-esque overtones). I champion 1970PT just as much as the Leviathans lovers do that period on the show (I actually can't wait until we get our first glimpse in episode #969 on June 5t
I hadn't realized you were a 1970 PT lover! While I rank 1795, lots of 1897, and some of the present day parts higher, it's still a part that I particularly enjoy and I always look forward to it (especially coming right after Leviathan!!!).
-
I, too, am pretty much of a fan of PT1970. Okay, granted, most of the characters high-tailed it outta there, visiting relatives and such (while their alter-egos were busy doing things at the Lyndhurst Estate), leaving the "left-overs" to carry the story until near the end when everyone returned home from visiting relatives to wrap things up. And I did not care at all for the Jekyll-Hyde thing (one lesson learned: drink weird chemical concoctions and your face turns into a mass of costume puddy). But for some reason, over-all, I liked it.
Gerard
-
Not a PT fan. I think mainly because I loathed just about all the characters. Nothing much there to enjoy watching.
I did like the Cyrus Longworth and John Yaeger plot. Not that I liked the folks involved with that anymore than with the rest of them, but it made for fascinating TV viewing. Plus, I thought Elizabeth Eis was very good.
-
Speaking of Carolyn's hair ...
Jeb's continual mauling of Carolyn's blonde tresses (could it have been a "fall"?) is such a stomach-turner ... I think he's only done it a couple of times so far, but just wait ... If you think Roger Davis touched his own hair a little too often ...
::)
heehee couldn't agree more What would atrract anyone to Jeb and the constant touching of her hair to me it would be like BACK OFF BUDDY! at least RD was touching his own hair!
Do believe that this was Nancy's own hair she wins IMHO best hair of the series a true breck girl!
jennifer
and didn't like sabrina's wig today! they should have just dyed her hair back and left it alone.seeing her photos of that time she also nice hair!
-
1970 PT wins my nomination for the most uneven of all the storylines. I thought it coupled some of the series' best moments with some real duds. I absolutely loved what they gave Thayer, Grayson, and Louis to do. I had mixed feelings about Lara's work on the storyline but some of it was really excellent, and darling Hannah Stokes was a hoot to watch (Paula Laurence--is that the name of the actress?). Nancy and Johnny made a great pair, too, though their screen time was greatly diminished due to various film involvements.
[spoiler]For me the biggest stumbling block was Quentin and Maggie. They were both such dreadful people, Quentin especially, but Maggie wasn't much better. And this made Barnabas' obsession with helping them very problematic for the viewer. There is even a scene where Julia asks Barnabas why on Earth he wants to help the PT Maggie and he gives her the usual runaround in response. I always wonder whether that wasn't included due to fan mail asking that very question. In those days, producers of shows actually cared what the fans thought about a given character or storyline, which is why the Leviathan story wound up being so abbreviated--because of the negative mail.[/spoiler]
With all this said, I've watched certain weeks of PT 1970 more frequently than many other periods, just because the theatricality of the premise worked so well for the actors. There really isn't anyone in the group for the audience to identify with though, which is problematic if you approach it as a traditional narrative.
Gothick
-
1970 PT wins my nomination for the most uneven of all the storylines. I thought it coupled some of the series' best moments with some real duds. I absolutely loved what they gave Thayer, Grayson, and Louis to do. I had mixed feelings about Lara's work on the storyline but some of it was really excellent, and darling Hannah Stokes was a hoot to watch (Paula Laurence--is that the name of the actress?). Nancy and Johnny made a great pair, too, though their screen time was greatly diminished due to various film involvements.
Gothick
[spoiler]After the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Will and Carolyn (nee Stoddard) Loomis (which were, unfortunately, on so very little), I'd hafta say that my next one was PT Elizabeth Collins Stoddard. It was something to see her completely switched over from being the reign-with-an-iron-fist mistress of Collinwood in Normal Time to the PT poor relative, having to replace her flashy wardrobe with frumpy outfits that everyone's Aunt Gertrude wears. But - alas - her time on the small screen was limited as well, since she had to go with her brother, Roger, who was turned from a rather conservative gentleman in NT into a PT cross-version of David Ogden Stiers and Bobby Sherman (with those clothes), to "visit relatives" living up in Lyndhurst in that other Parallel Time.[/spoiler]
Gerard
-
I absolutely loved reading this thread. Some really fabulous posts that took me a while to pour through, but certainly worth it. I have to admit I love the Leviathan era, warts and all. I also am a great fan of 1970 PT. There is something beyond creepy about the Leviathans nefarious plot to rule the world. I just wish that DC wouldn't have panikced and would have let the story play out and wouldn't have cut it in two. Thankfully DS did recover with 1970 PT and I would also have to agree that I loved 1840 as well. As I have said before somewhere, the ten episodes spent in 1995 were genius and I wish the show would have stayed more than two weeks there. I wonder who's idea it was to go travel forward in time??