DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '05 II => Topic started by: BuzzH on December 06, 2005, 04:50:47 PM
-
I was watching my boxset 10 last night and they did the episode where [spoiler]Barnabas, Julia and Stokes conspire to break in to Blair House to kill Eve. While Barny's off actually getting munched on by Angelique[/spoiler]Stokes regales Nicholas w/stories of the Old House history and he begins by telling him that the Old House was built in 1767 as a wedding present to Naomi from Joshua.
So, if we assume that they had Barnabas right away, that would make his birth year 1768 and him 28, or about to turn 28 depending on the month of his birth, when he "died" in 1796. Hmmm, Frid was 43 during that plotline, in fact they actually celebrated his birthday during it (see My Scrapbook Memories of DS for pics) and although he was a youthful looking 43, I personally don't think he looked 28! 33, *maybe*, but 28....? Think this was a big continuity blooper! [santa_grin]
-
Sounds like the typical ambiguity of 18th Century Collinwood as we knew it - or attempted to know it in later years. I never would have caught most of that the first time around.
I think JF looked all of his 43 years though. Probably for the same reason that no matter how old I get people who were adults when I wasn't still seem really old when I watch reruns.
-
Stokes regales Nicholas w/stories of the Old House history and he begins by telling him that the Old House was built in 1767 as a wedding present to Naomi from Joshua.
It's funny how we sometimes hear/remember things slightly differently than what's said. Recently in another topic I made mention of the year Stokes refers to, and I was almost certain Stokes says Joshua gave the Old House to Naomi as a wedding gift - BUT when I checked the scene itself I discovered that Stokes says, "It was built in 1767 by Joshua Collins as a gift to his bride, Naomi." Yes, referring to Naomi as "his bride" rather than "his wife" does seem to imply that the Old House was a wedding gift, and it might be splitting hairs to say so, but we can't necessarily be absolutely certain that Joshua and Naomi might not have lived for a time in a completely different house before/while the Old House was being built, so we can't necessarily pin down 1767 as the exact year of their wedding. [santa_wink]
-
when i was actually watching the 1795 storyline my impression was that the collins family had lived in "the old house" for generations not less than 30 years.why would joshua build such an elaborate house and in a rather short period of time feel the need to build collinwood?the family was not that large and there didn't seem to be alot of servants.
was it intended for the old house to be a home for barnabas and josette?i remember naomi giving it to barnabas after he married angelique but i forget where barnabas and josette were supposed to live.
-
was it intended for the old house to be a home for barnabas and josette?i remember naomi giving it to barnabas after he married angelique but i forget where barnabas and josette were supposed to live.
Yes, it was intended that Barnabas and Josette live there. [santa_smiley]
-
I've seen yearbooks of teenagers from the roaring 20s and 30s. Most of the girls and boys look older than 17 years old, probably because of their hairstyle and clothes. People didn't live as long in the 18th century either, and they looked older than their chronological age too. So someone of 28 years old could have looked older in 1795 then the man in 1967 who was 43.
[a_xmas]
As far as the old house being a gift, I can't remember that episode where Stokes mentions the year but one idea to remember, the Collins history had 2 versions... the written and the actual. Of course the writers tended to add things and make some interesting inconsistancies as well.
-
Yes, referring to Naomi as "his bride" rather than "his wife" does seem to imply that the Old House was a wedding gift, and it might be splitting hairs to say so, but we can't necessarily be absolutely certain that Joshua and Naomi might not have lived for a time in a completely different house before/while the Old House was being built, so we can't necessarily pin down 1767 as the exact year of their wedding. [santa_wink]
I'd buy that, whew! Actually, I wrote a story once about Abigail and I put Barnabas' birth year at 1764. [santa_cool]
-
For what it's worth, it's established during 1970PT that PT-Barnabas was born in 1770. We can't necessarily use that same year for RT-Barnabas' birth because, well, things are different in PT. [santa_wink] But IF it did correlate, that would mean that (barring Barnabas being born in early January and having had a birthday celebration that we never saw in 1796 [b003]) Barnabas was 25 when he was cursed.
-
For what it's worth, it's established during 1970PT that PT-Barnabas was born in 1770. We can't necessarily use that same year for RT-Barnabas' birth because, well, things are different in PT. [santa_wink] But IF it did correlate, that would mean that (barring Barnabas being born in early January and having had a birthday celebration that we never saw in 1796 [b003]) Barnabas was 25 when he was cursed.
25? That's hard to imagine but 30 or 35 is closer to believe. I read a fanfic explaining why Barnabas looked older than his "real" ago. Made sense to me. It was explained that while in the coffin for 172 years and without any blood, his body slowly aged. When he was released and able to receive blood again, his aging stopped where it reached... about 43. [santa_azn]
-
It was explained that while in the coffin for 172 years and without any blood, his body slowly aged. When he was released and able to receive blood again, his aging stopped where it reached... about 43.
Hmmm - and how did they explain that Barnabas looked the same as a vampire in 1796, before being chained in the coffin, as he did in 1967 and beyond? [santa_wink]
-
It was explained that while in the coffin for 172 years and without any blood, his body slowly aged. When he was released and able to receive blood again, his aging stopped where it reached... about 43.
And how did they explain that Barnabas looked the same as a vampire in 1796, before being chained in the coffin, as he did in 1967 and beyond? [santa_wink]
They didn't but if you review the 1795 storyline again, the living Barnabas looks a tad younger without all the black eyeliner and makeup on his cheeks to make him look dead. After Barnabas dies in 1795 he still looked younger and thinner than his counterpart in 1967. I think they made Barnabas look older... just a little bit or it's my imagination when I see episode 461, there Vicki returns to the present. He looks older in those clothes and his worrying makes him look older too. lol
The fanfic was trying to explain why he looked 43. lol and I thought it was a great attempt.
-
The fanfic was trying to explain why he looked 43. lol and I thought it was a great attempt.
Perhaps it was simply that all the candlelight made Barnabas LOOK as old as a vampire in 1796 as he did in the present? Although, now that I think about it, isn't candlelight supposed to be more flattering than almost any type of electric light? So, maybe that's why some people might think he looks younger in 1796. [santa_grin] (Though, of course, that doesn't explain away how he looks in his scenes at the Old House in the present because they're by candlelight too. [santa_wink])
-
And maybe it was just because no one knew the character of Barnabas was going to become a "heart throb" so it never occured to them that they should hire a male model instead of an actor.
Sometimes things just work out for the best... [santa_wink]
-
They didn't but if you review the 1795 storyline again, the living Barnabas looks a tad younger without all the black eyeliner and makeup on his cheeks to make him look dead.
One of those heavy eyeliner photos of Jonathan Frid as Barnabas was framed and for a time Louis Edmonds hung it up in his bathroom at the Rookery. Frid autographed it: "To Louis, Love Joan Crawford."
Nancy
-
One of those heavy eyeliner photos of Jonathan Frid as Barnabas was framed and for a time Louis Edmonds hung it up in his bathroom at the Rookery. Frid autographed it: "To Louis, Love Joan Crawford."
LOL the makeup was so amazing, how they got his cheeks to look so sunken in, he looked emaciated.
-
For what it's worth, it's established during 1970PT that PT-Barnabas was born in 1770. We can't necessarily use that same year for RT-Barnabas' birth because, well, things are different in PT. [santa_wink] But IF it did correlate, that would mean that (barring Barnabas being born in early January and having had a birthday celebration that we never saw in 1796 [b003]) Barnabas was 25 when he was cursed.
This works for me, forgetting Frid's age of course, as Josette was in her 22nd year when she died, whether she was still 21 or had actually turned 22 we don't know. But her gravestone puts her birth year in 1774. Him being 3 years older works for me. But, so does him being a little older, 30ish say...But I've howled down this path before, LOL! [santa_cheesy]
-
One of those heavy eyeliner photos of Jonathan Frid as Barnabas was framed and for a time Louis Edmonds hung it up in his bathroom at the Rookery. Frid autographed it: "To Louis, Love Joan Crawford."
LOL! I saw that photo, when a bunch of us visited Louie in June 1998. But it was in the bathroom of his guest house at The Rookery! ;) He was a wonderful host, showed us his 'secret' garden and told us the story of how he stole shutters from Spratt House (aka The Old House) and brought them to The Rookery. ;)
-
LOL the makeup was so amazing, how they got his cheeks to look so sunken in, he looked emaciated.
Well, if you've seen the picture of him and Louis at the beach that's in Big Lou, Jon was pretty skinny in those days, LOL!
-
I don't know why they couldn't have just said that Barnabas was 35, he looked 35 at the youngest, and there's nothing wrong with being 35. It was quite common for the husband to be older than the wife then. Jonathan Frid certainly didn't look 25! It is much easier to play older than younger.
Barnabas would still be the same character if they had him be 35 or so, andit would have been much more believable too.
On a different subject, remember when Barnabas used some sort of magic to make it seem that Dr. Woodard was haunting Julia? He said that he learned this in Barbados. Then when the show went back to 1795 they wrote him to be all innocent. Not at all the same person he was in 1967. In 1795 he didn't even believe in witches.
-
My mind works this way regardless of what the writer's wrote.
Jonathan Frid was in his 40s in real life. So for me he was also in his 40s in the storyline.
I just simply ignore the dates. Since the dates never meant much to the writer's anyway. If they had they wouldn't have kept making so many mistakes with them.They would have kept track of the dates they already used in previous storylines. Iinstead of pulling a completely different date out of thin air to do a flashback or have a character to use a date to explain something that didn't agree with what had already been established as a date in a previous storyline.
FireRose
-
LOL! I saw that photo, when a bunch of us visited Louie in June 1998. But it was in the bathroom of his guest house at The Rookery! ;) He was a wonderful host, showed us his 'secret' garden and told us the story of how he stole shutters from Spratt House (aka The Old House) and brought them to The Rookery. ;)
That must have been a hoot to see!
Nancy
-
Well, if you've seen the picture of him and Louis at the beach that's in Big Lou, Jon was pretty skinny in those days, LOL!
I love that photo in Craig's book too. Believe it or not, JF is pretty much that skinny now. Since getting older (like 80 and now recently 81) he insists on walking into town to buy groceries and get a paper rather than drive. He does this in order to keep in shape the best he can. When I saw him this past October, I don't believe he weighed anymore than 200 pounds. He's even thinner than when the photo was taken on the front page of his website. http://www.jonathanfrid.com.
However, please note he ain't wearing bathing trunks! :)
Nancy
-
On a different subject, remember when Barnabas used some sort of magic to make it seem that Dr. Woodard was haunting Julia? He said that he learned this in Barbados. Then when the show went back to 1795 they wrote him to be all innocent. Not at all the same person he was in 1967. In 1795 he didn't even believe in witches.
Yep, just another one of those *pesky* details that got changed when they decided to keep ol' Barny around and give him a back-story, LOL! ;)
-
I just simply ignore the dates. Since the dates never meant much to the writer's anyway. If they had they wouldn't have kept making so many mistakes with them.They would have kept track of the dates they already used in previous storylines. Iinstead of pulling a completely different date out of thin air to do a flashback or have a character to use a date to explain something that didn't agree with what had already been established as a date in a previous storyline.
This sounds like a VERY good way to keep your *sanity* when watching DS! LOL! [santa_azn]