DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '26 I => Current Talk '03 I => Topic started by: Josette on May 21, 2003, 06:29:57 AM

Title: Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Josette on May 21, 2003, 06:29:57 AM
Angelique was so worried about Elizabeth and/or Carolyn recognizing her as Cassandra.  Barnabas pointed out that she had had dark hair then.  Lots of people have dyed their hair and still been recognized!!  However, so far it seems to have worked, despite Liz' feeling of familiarity about her.

But, both before they arrived and today when Barnabas came to get Carolyn, we see that the portrait of Angelique is still there!!!  Aside from whether or not that would recall to them who she is, surely they'd remember that portrait.  I guess we assume it's in a room they didn't go in, but as it seems to be somewhere near the front entrance and they are visiting for a week, it's really hard to believe that she'd risk that!!!!!
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 21, 2003, 07:34:15 AM
I guess we assume it's in a room they didn't go in, but as it seems to be somewhere near the front entrance and they are visiting for a week, it's really hard to believe that she'd risk that!!!!!

Well, remember, so far as they know, the portrait Vicki bought was ruined beyond repair. So, if they did see the portait at Rumson House, they wouldn't think it was the same one and *might* even assume it was merely painted in the same style, as some people have been known to do. I suppose we can just believe that whatever might have taken place with reguard to the portrait and whatever cover story might have been given occurred during a time period we didn't see. ;)  As problems with this storyline go, anything having to do with the portrait is minor, indeed, basically because the portrait itself is a minor plot point - unlike a major development having to do with a "real world" aspect of the plot that comes up today for the first time in episode #949. It simply defies any logical explanation whatsoever, and it's one of the biggest problems I have with this portion of the story...
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Raineypark on May 21, 2003, 01:29:11 PM
  As problems with this storyline go, anything having to do with the portrait is minor, indeed, basically because the portrait itself is a minor plot point - unlike a major development having to do with a "real world" aspect of the plot that comes up today for the first time in episode #949. It simply defies any logical explanation whatsoever, and it's one of the biggest problems I have with this portion of the story...

Would you mind expounding on this oblique commentary?  I'm afraid I was watching episode #949 this morning while simultaneously reading the newspaper and sharing breakfast with the dog......and simply don't recall anything more egregiously illogical than usual. [smrtasb]
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 21, 2003, 06:36:20 PM
Would you mind expounding on this oblique commentary?

With pleasure. But first let me preface what I'm about to say by explaining that I have absolutely no problem accepting anything supernatural that DS might throw at us. When it comes to those aspects of the stories, the show's writers were free to let their imaginations soar and to make up the rules as they went along, and the audience was simply taken along on the ride. However, whenever aspects of the plot crossed over into the "real world," DS was not free to make up its own rules.

Now, bearing that in mind, the Leviathans plot twist that completely defies logic was first introduced in episode #949 when Jeb burst into Collinwood and revealed that Philip "confessed" to all three recent murders. In subsequent episodes, we'll learn that Philip is actually being held in custody. But the thing is, any nut off the street can go into a police station and confess to anything. In order for them to be held for the crime(s), there needs to be actual evidence to connect them. A confession alone is not enough. But at no point during this whole situation is any evidence of that sort referenced. For example, just how was Philip able to carry out such bizarre murders? That sort of evidence needed to be specifically addressed within the story for his confession and arrest to hold any legitimacy - yet we get nothing. But the "best" part in all this is that Philip expresses fears he'll die for three murders he didn't commit. However, there's just one little hitch to that notion - back in 1970 Maine was one of nine states that didn't have capital punishment - the penalty for murder was life in prison. But then, why should such a small detail like reality prevent the DS writers from coming up with any of this, right? ::)

Shame on Violet Welles for first introducing the idea that someone could actually be executed for these murders - and shame on the DS writers as a whole for not making this plot twist believable in any way...
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Raineypark on May 21, 2003, 07:40:07 PM
However, whenever aspects of the plot crossed over into the "real world," DS was not free to make up its own rules.


Ah, the exquisite tortures of examining Dark Shadows too closely!!

On a show where they couldn't even track the continuity from pink dresses to black ones, it really is too much to expect that anyone on the set in New York should have called the Maine Legislature to ask if they had the death penalty on the books.  And even if they HAD known that the death penalty was not available, can't you just picture a writer deciding that  "I'm going to die...." works better as dialogue than "I"m going to spend the next 25 years to life....."?  Do you suppose they got many complaints?  Even from viewers in Maine?

You grant the writers complete freedom to invent their supernatural aspects as they will.  Safe to say they pretty much had that freedom on the set.....and I'll wager they were SO used to working that way that they simply couldn't be bothered remembering to sort out 'real' issues from fantasy ones.

As examples of reality-trashing go, I don't think this one holds a candle to the way in which a man found clinically insane was released 5 months later after a 10 minute conversation with a doctor who admitted to only "reading reports" about his condition for the duration of his committment!!

I guess once you get used to bending the laws of physics and nature, criminal law doesn't even merit a wink and a nod.  ;)
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 21, 2003, 09:32:54 PM
On a show where they couldn't even track the continuity from pink dresses to black ones, it really is too much to expect that anyone on the set in New York should have called the Maine Legislature to ask if they had the death penalty on the books.

Well, believe it or not, the writers did research obscure Maine laws for the witchcraft trials that took place on the show. So, they were motivated when the spirit moved them. Unfortunately, it didn't move them often enough. ;)

And the death penalty issue is but a fraction of the problem. Even the most dimwitted attorney imaginable could have gotten Philip off had his case ever actually gone to trial. [lghy]

Quote
Ah, the exquisite tortures of examining Dark Shadows too closely!!

As for examining this plot too closely, well, back in the Dark Ages of online DS fandom (early 1997) circumstances existed that required that I closely examine even the tiniest minutiae of this storyline. But to reveal the reason behind it would be to reveal too much, as those who know who I am will definitely understand. ;) You'll simply have to trust that there was a very good reason at the time. It's just too bad that none of us involved in the project thought to save any of it. :( So, much like the events of the actual Dark Ages, it's merely the stuff of legend nowadays...

  [argue]
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Midnite on May 21, 2003, 10:26:19 PM
Well, believe it or not, the writers did research obscure Maine laws for the witchcraft trials that took place on the show. So, they were motivated when the spirit moved them. Unfortunately, it didn't move them often enough. ;)

Don't get me started on how it never moooved them ( ;) to sheenasma) to do any medical research.  How ridiculous was it for Julia, a medical doctor, to hover over a feverish baby Joseph while he's wrapped in a wool blanket?  Okay, so he was the wool blanket, but still...

Quote
Even the most dimwitted attorney imaginable could have gotten Philip off had his case ever actually gone to trial. [lghy]

Except Peter Bradford, snort.
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 21, 2003, 11:21:58 PM
Even the most dimwitted attorney imaginable could have gotten Philip off had his case ever actually gone to trial. [lghy]

Except Peter Bradford, snort.

Yes, well, I suppose HE would be THE exception. :D

But then, wasn't Peter Bradford only studying the law? (No doubt via an early form of correspondence course - somehow I can't imagine any respectable attorney being willing to publicly tutor him. [wink2]) The fact that he'd never actually passed a bar exam (or did they even have such a thing in 1796? - paging any lawyers out there...) probably goes a long way in explaining all of his problems! [lghy]


Isn't it amazing how this topic has evolved to the point that it no longer has anything whatsoever to do with its title? [winkg]
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Raineypark on May 22, 2003, 02:38:03 AM
My vote for the most appalling reality-trashing on BOTH the legal and medical fronts?

Dr. Hoffmann's routine pronouncement of deaths based upon a flick of an eyelid and a cursory search for a pulse.  On such paltry evidence, many a soul was consigned to the grave, many a hasty headstone erected.

MB....your obfuscatory comments about long-ago doings the rest of us know nothing about, were not kind....there's nothing nice about being a 'tease'.  [nono]

And what the hell is the title of this tread, anyway?
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Debra on May 22, 2003, 08:57:04 AM
Well, remember, so far as they know, the portrait Vicki bought was ruined beyond repair.

When did this happen?  When Vicky first bought the portrait back to Collinwood after she had purchased it in an antique shop I didn't think it looked "ruined" or beyond repair?  Did I miss something here?  I thought the painting looked pretty good.

Deb
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 22, 2003, 12:01:58 PM
When did this happen?  When Vicky first bought the portrait back to Collinwood after she had purchased it in an antique shop I didn't think it looked "ruined" or beyond repair?  Did I miss something here?

Well...

(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ruined.jpg)
[spoiler]When Nicholas took away Cassandra's powers and she began to age rapidly, Vicki, Julia and Roger discovered that Angelique's portrait suddenly appeared as it does in the above photo.[/spoiler]

And we finally get this thread back on topic. ;) And thanks for an opportunity to show everyone how the new Spoiler Text feature acts. :D
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Bobubas on May 22, 2003, 12:46:45 PM
[ And we finally get this thread back on topic. ;) And thanks for an opportunity to show everyone how the new Spoiler Text feature acts. :D

The Spoiler Text feature is great. What a neat and relative addition to the site.  :)[spoiler]Peek-A- Boo  :)[/spoiler](http://members.aol.com/bobubas/ang.jpg) Speaking of the 1795 Angelique portrait. Here is a replica I made and had on display at my dealers table at the 2001 NY Festival.
Title: OT - spoiler text
Post by: Midnite on May 22, 2003, 02:54:57 PM
And thanks for an opportunity to show everyone how the new Spoiler Text feature acts. :D

I love it.  On some other posting boards you have to move the cursor around to find the spoilers, and sometimes you find that a large blank space is just a blank space.  If you've been to The Bronze pb you know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re:OT - spoiler text
Post by: Raineypark on May 22, 2003, 03:08:35 PM
On some other posting boards you have to move the cursor around to find the spoilers, and sometimes you find that a large blank space is just a blank space.

A large blank space is all I'm getting, even when I move the cursor.

Don't tell me.  Let me guess. It's just an IE thang..... ::)
Title: Re:OT - spoiler text
Post by: Midnite on May 22, 2003, 04:18:12 PM
A large blank space is all I'm getting, even when I move the cursor.

Don't tell me.  Let me guess. It's just an IE thang..... ::)

Ack, I don't see the text in IE either. [undb]
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Raineypark on May 22, 2003, 04:28:23 PM
Midnite, I'm thinking we're gonna need a MUCH stronger word than 'Ack' for this IE crap.

I can here the lecture from you-know-who already.  [bnghd]
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Gerard on May 22, 2003, 04:50:56 PM
Put the cursor over the blank space and highlight - then it'll appear.  I did it quite by accident.  Now I'm gonna do a quick test myself just to see if I can make a spoiler space.

[spoiler]Surprise!  Barnabas Collins is a vampire.[/spoiler]

Anyway, one quick comment about Angelique's portrait - actually about the house in which Angelique resides with the portrait and her husband.  A doorbell!  The place has a doorbell!  In vritual every residence, from Collinwood to Prof. Stokes quaint apartment, that gadget must not've arrived yet since everyone hasta knock.

Gerard
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Raineypark on May 22, 2003, 05:17:43 PM
YAY GERARD!!!!!!

It works perfectly!!!!
Thanks for sharing your 'lucky accident' with the rest of us!  [thumb]
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Midnite on May 22, 2003, 06:11:07 PM
LOL, thanks, Gerard.  In Netscape you don't have to highlight, silly me.
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Debra on May 22, 2003, 10:21:54 PM
Well...
When Nicholas took away Cassandra's powers and she began to age rapidly, Vicki, Julia and Roger discovered that Angelique's portrait suddenly appeared as it does in the above photo.


Yes, that's true and that I do remember.  I thought you were referring to when Vicky first bought the portrait into the house at Collinwood.  I think this is what Josette is referring to in the post and why didn't Carolyn and her mom recognize the photo in the Rumson house as the same one that sat in the drawing room at Collinwood.
After all,  Julia noticed it right away. ;)

The portrait was in perfect condition then and it also had been sitting in the Collinwood drawing room for quite some time before the aging took place.  So Carolyn and the others had ample time to view it before Sam Evans actually aged the picture.


Deb
Title: Re:OT - spoiler text
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 22, 2003, 11:59:10 PM
A large blank space is all I'm getting, even when I move the cursor.

Don't tell me.  Let me guess. It's just an IE thang..... ::)

You mean, without even trying, I wrote something that works correctly in EVERY browser other than IE? Oh, I AM good! [wink2]

Put the cursor over the blank space and highlight - then it'll appear.  I did it quite by accident.

Thanks for discovering a workaround for the IE unfortunate, Gerard. [thumb]

LOL, thanks, Gerard.  In Netscape you don't have to highlight, silly me.

No - SILLY IE! ::)
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Philippe Cordier on May 23, 2003, 12:30:21 AM
Despite MB's picture of an aged portrait of Angelique, I do remember Elizabeth specifically seeing the 1795 portrait of Angelique in the Collinwood drawing room shortly after Victoria purchased it in Collinsport.  There was nothing wrong with the portrait at that time.

Maybe Angelique forgot that they had seen it ... although I seem to remember that she must have orchestrated the events that led to Vicki's bringing the portrait to Collinwood ... so that Roger could become mesmerized by it and recite "Dover Beach."

 :)


Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 23, 2003, 12:53:03 AM
Despite MB's picture of an aged portrait of Angelique, I do remember Elizabeth specifically seeing the 1795 portrait of Angelique in the Collinwood drawing room shortly after Victoria purchased it in Collinsport.  There was nothing wrong with the portrait at that time.

I believe you're confusing the timeline, Vlad. Vicki purchased the portrait in April '68 - but the capture I've posted is from July '68, taken from an episode during Cassandra's swan song.
Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Philippe Cordier on May 23, 2003, 01:45:24 AM

I believe you're confusing the timeline, Vlad. Vicki purchased the portrait in April '68 - but the capture I've posted is from July '68, taken from an episode during Cassandra's swan song.


I didn't see that you had explained this using the new "Spoiler" invisible writing feature.


Title: Re:Angelique's Portrait
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on May 23, 2003, 01:54:39 AM
I didn't see that you had explained this using the new "Spoiler" invisible writing feature.

Ah, that would explain it. ;) I thought it was odd for you to confuse the timing because you're usually so on top of things. :)