DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '05 II => Topic started by: Patti Feinberg on December 04, 2005, 05:10:03 PM

Title: Ep #637
Post by: Patti Feinberg on December 04, 2005, 05:10:03 PM

Ep #637 (montage)  how do I say....
[size=8]

ICK!!!

[/b][/color][/size]

aaaaahhhhh!!!!!

Patti

Title: Re: Ep #637
Post by: Ian on December 04, 2005, 07:36:25 PM

Although I have to concur with MB's comment when Jeff is disappearing. ;)

Title: Re: Ep #637
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 04, 2005, 10:39:17 PM

Quote from: Patti on December 04, 2005, 05:10:03 PM

[size=8]

ICK!!!

[/b][/color][/size]

aaaaahhhhh!!!!!

I assume you're referring to this:

(http://www.dsboards.com/eventimages/1203ds_0.jpg)
Vicki and Jeff are married.

But, Patti - weddings are supposed to be joyous events - shouldn't we have been [crowdhappy] happy and [banana] [banana] [banana] dancing?  [b003]

Title: Re: Ep #637
Post by: Barnabas'sBride on December 04, 2005, 11:27:09 PM

I was happy and dancing when he disappeared.  [santa_tongue]

I must say though, Elizabeth looked very nice for the wedding. She looked prettier than the bride.

Title: Re: Ep #637
Post by: michael c on December 06, 2005, 02:55:23 AM

a union between fake-vicki and jeff clark?talk about a match made in hell. [diablo]

the thing about jeff's disappearance is that it's ultimately not that satisfying.within episodes he's back during the brief 1796 storyline.then we get ned stuart...and dirk wilkinson...and charles delaware tate.you get my drift.

besides "dirk's" cheesy glued-on mustache they didn't do anything to differentiate roger davis' characters.it's always jeff clark in my mind.contrast this to uber-chameleon thayer david.look at the four characters he played during this same period.each one both physically and tempermentally it's own persona.

i know that dan curtis liked roger davis but were they contractually bound to keep using him?would it have killed them to have another actor play ned stuart?charles delaware tate?it's sort of disconcerting to have the same actor keep showing up as different characters one right on top of the other.

Title: Re: Ep #637
Post by: Barnabas'sBride on December 06, 2005, 04:01:25 AM

I agree with you. It bugged me when he kept showing up as various characters within such a short time, and like you said, he wasn't like Thayer David, who played each of his characters so differently. Davis doesn't really do anything different with any of his characters.

Still, it was nice to see him fade away, even if it wasn't permanent. [santa_smiley]

Title: Re: Ep #637
Post by: Charles_Ellis on December 06, 2005, 03:11:54 PM

Oh, please!  Look at Joan's face- she's wishing Alexandra were there, and so do I!  This scene means absolutely nothing to me  because Curtis et al managed to piss of millions of fans by not having Alexandra's Vicki marry Roger Davis' Jeff before she left DS for pregnancy reasons.  The writers should have had Jeff recover his memory as Jeff Bradford, marry Vicki and then disappear into the past with Vicki all within one episode- yes, the would've be massive rewriting of scripts, but at least Alexandra (and Vicki) would've gotten a great sendoff that was going to please the veiwers.  Curtis really dropped the ball here.  Thank goodness the storylines that immediately followed ("Turn of the Screw"/1897) would soon bring greater glory to DS and made everyone forget about 'Betsy-Wetsy' Durkin.

Title: Re: Ep #637
Post by: Barnabas'sBride on December 06, 2005, 04:15:00 PM

Between being recasted twice and the whole [spoiler]Jeb kills her in 1796 thing, which I blatantly ignore because it's so pointless and insulting to the character and fans of the character,[/spoiler] Vicki does get a very poor send-off. I too wish they had just written Victoria out and not bothered with recasts.