DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '06 I => Topic started by: Roland on June 28, 2006, 07:00:27 AM
-
I'm currently watching the 1840 section and I've been noticing that whenever they refer back to Barnabas' original time, they mistakenly identify the year as 1797 instead of 1795 (only once, in one of the voiceover intros, do they get it right).
I wonder how both the writers and the actors could have gotten it wrong so often. I mean, if I, as a mere viewer, can spot the mistake, why couldn't the people responsible for the show itself see it?
I also don't get [spoiler]how Barnabas can be the cause of Roxanne's vampirism in 1840 and yet not have her recognize him in 1970.[/spoiler]But I guess that is just one of those mind-blowing paradoxes about time-travel that are best not brooded upon to any great extent.
-
They seem to interchange it a great deal. The voice over gets it. Then an actor's line says 1797. But, we do this show got by on the seat of its pants. Continuity was not a strong point. I'm enjoying this story line a great deal.
As for Roxanne, [spoiler]my speculation is that she may not have been made by Barnabas but by some other force. This would explain the recognition issue. I'm not sure by what force or whom yet. This is just my speculation. Many strange forces lurk about Collinwood.[/spoiler]
-
I think it first got switched to 1797 during the Lady Kitty period (towards the latter part of the 1897 storyline). I have wondered whether the writers changed it deliberately to make it 100 years previous to 1897. They seem to have liked doing things in periods of 100 years--think back to the original Laura Collins story (which they also messed with in the 1897 version).
As regards Roxanne, [spoiler]I believe that "originally" she was the victim of a different vampire. There are a LOT of discrepancies between what we are told about 1840 during the Summer of 1970 story, and what actually happens in 1840 once they get there. A huge discrepancy is that the children were supposed to be central to Gerard's interest in Collinwood... yet, when we actually get to 1840, the children are only peripheral to what happens. In part, this was because David Henesy left the show during this period.[/spoiler]
If you're a Roxanne Fan, I think Kathy Resch wrote an entire novel which tried to reconcile the discontinuities of what they showed about her (the Roxanne of our time, not the Roxanne of PT). You can write to Kathy at the World of Dark Shadows zine address and ask her if the book is still available.
Best, G.
-
It seems to me that it was very easy for Barnabas to create a vampire. He didn't need to do anything except drain their blood. He never took precautions to either prevent a victim from becoming a vampire, or to make sure they became a vampire.
In the Dracula movie, Dracula had to give some of his blood to the victim if he wanted them to become a vampire. Anyway, [spoiler]I think that this explains Roxanne; one of Barnabas' victims became a vampire in 1795, and then they, or one of their victims, made Roxanne a vampire. This explains why Roxanne was a vampire in 1970, but didn't recognize Barnabas.[/spoiler]
I prefer there be something extra that the vampire needs to do in order for their victim to be a vampire, otherwise the world would be full of vampires.
Misa
-
In the Dracula movie, Dracula had to give some of his blood to the victim if he wanted them to become a vampire.
I think you're mistaken. In the Stoker version, all Dracula had to do was drain their blood, though in Anne Rice's "Interview with a Vampire," Lestat had to give his victims some of his blood to make them vampires. My heart weeps for poor Claudia. :(
-
In the Dracula movie, Dracula had to give some of his blood to the victim if he wanted them to become a vampire.
I think you're mistaken. In the Stoker version, all Dracula had to do was drain their blood, though in Anne Rice's "Interview with a Vampire," Lestat had to give his victims some of his blood to make them vampires.
What Ian said. :) This is from Stoker's novel, spoken by Van Helsing: "...for all that die from the preying of the Un-Dead become themselves Un-Dead, and prey on their kind. And so the circle goes on ever widening, like as the ripples from a stone thrown in the water." (Chap. XVI)
Misa, I don't know which Dracula movie you were referring to, but you may be thinking about Mina (or Lucy, again depending on the version) drinking the blood of Dracula. In Stoker's story, he forced her to drink with the purpose of gaining control over her, a bond that was eventually exploited by the vampire hunters.
-
I agree with Misa. If all of a vampire's fatal victims become vampires themselves, then the world would soon be populated by vampires. I can suspend my disbelief more easily if there is some "extra" effort necessary to make a particular victim a vampire.
The 1991 DS series is a good example of how this issue was confused. All though Barnabas killed several victims, only Daphne became a vampire. No explanation was offered. Although, fans have attempted to explain it.
There is one vampire tradition that says -- when a vicitm is dying, he'she can be offered "eternal life". If the victim asks for eternal life, then the vampire will transfer to him/her the "dark gift."
I hope that any future incarnations of Dark Shadows will incorporate something along these lines. Anyone agree or disagree?
-
But, we do this show got by on the seat of its pants. Continuity was not a strong point.
That's putting in mildly. One glitch which I never see mentioned is one I think I only noticed because its a fact I just happened to know.
In one of the last storylines, must have been 1840, Angelique is talking about her background and happened to mention being from Martinique, IN THE BRITISH WEST INDIES. [jawdrp] [jawdrp] Nice little adjustment of the Space Time Continuum there. Would I have noticed that if my grandmother hadn't been born and raised in the British West Indies? Who knows.
-
One glitch which I never see mentioned is one I think I only noticed because its a fact I just happened to know.
In one of the last storylines, must have been 1840, Angelique is talking about her background and happened to mention being from Martinique, IN THE BRITISH WEST INDIES. <jawdrp> <jawdrp]> Nice little adjustment of the Space Time Continuum there. Would I have noticed that if my grandmother hadn't been born and raised in the British West Indies? Who knows.
Is this what you're referring to? Miranda is telling Barnabas what became of her following her exile from Bedford:
Robservations 11/17/03 - A Curse is Lifted - 1169-1170
I went to the West Indies, she says, long after that to Martinique, where I met Josette and finally you--but I always knew that someday Judah would return for me.
The only character that I think mentioned the British West Indies was Gabriel in 1840. I'm not sure if the actor misspoke or that's how the line was written, but is this necessarily a blooper? Couldn't Mirangelique have arrived in the British West Indies in 1692 and eventually settled in French Martinique by the time we meet her in 1795?
-
Miranda is telling Barnabas what became of her following her exile from Bedford:
Robservations 11/17/03 - A Curse is Lifted - 1169-1170
I went to the West Indies, she says, long after that to Martinique, where I met Josette and finally you--but I always knew that someday Judah would return for me.
The only character that I think mentioned the British West Indies was Gabriel in 1840. I'm not sure if the actor misspoke or that's how the line was written, but is this necessarily a blooper? Couldn't Mirangelique have arrived in the British West Indies in 1692 and eventually settled in French Martinique by the time we meet her in 1795?
Either of your suggestions is plausible, but I really wish I could remember more about that scene. I only saw 1840 through the last time it was on SciFi, and although I taped off the air, I really haven't gone back and watched them. As to narrowing it down, it doesn't sound like anything from 1795 -- they were pretty decent with continuity there. It also couldn't be 1841, as there was no Angelique in that one. That's what makes me pretty sure it's in 1840.
The thing popped into my head a few days ago; it was something I thought of when I first read the thread, but forgot by the time I had gone to post, then I just remembered it tonight. I am pretty sure it was just one of those throwaways that DS specialized in -- great if you are looking for snippets to build character development in fanfiction, but the sort of thing either you catch on the first viewing or if you are power watching for some reason. All I remember about it is Angelique telling someone about where she was from, so it MIGHT have been one of the examples you give.
Of course it's quite possible I am misremembering it and its one of those things you find out later didn't happen the way you think it did. It 's just SO strong in my memory though, cause it struck me as so odd and I wondered at the time if LP who I'm sure knew better tried to correct the error and got brushed off by the director.
Oh, well, thanks for looking into it and giving those two possibilities. I guess I have to see if I hit it again when I have time to watch 1840.
-
Pansity, when you come across the scene again, do please share it! :)
-
Pansity, when you come across the scene again, do please share it! :)
Be glad to, whenever it may be. I now have three dvds of 1795 calling my name...
-
Mirangelique
Sweetie....that's the first time I've ever heard that version of her name!!! Thanks doll!!
Patti
-
Speaking of getting the year wrong, I've seen references to the 1840 episodes as 1840 and 1840/1. I seem to remember that the parallel time version went up to 1841, but "our" space/time continuum? The (never-ending) trial? Did they say the date for that?
-
they started getting the year wrong for 1795 even earlier than 1840 storyline. they did a flashback with carolyn groves playing vicki and kept saying it was 1796. i think the year 1840 changed to 1841 because it became january 1971 in the present day but they changed the dates so many times before this i dont know why they let that bother them.
-
If all of a vampire's fatal victims become vampires themselves, then the world would soon be populated by vampires. I can suspend my disbelief more easily if there is some "extra" effort necessary to make a particular victim a vampire.
The 1991 DS series is a good example of how this issue was confused. All though Barnabas killed several victims, only Daphne became a vampire. No explanation was offered. Although, fans have attempted to explain it.
Some things to consider in the theory.
If you remember [spoiler]Daphne was not killed at first , Barnabas attacked her and fed from her, but she was found alive. Later she was "drained", and became a vampire. She was clearly under his spell, since he was able to drawl her to the stairs, or she was able to sense he was in the house, later he drew her out to the garden and killed her. Carolyn and Willie were also under Barnabas's spell by merely being bitten.[/spoiler]
-
they did a flashback with carolyn groves playing vicki and kept saying it was 1796.
That was because at that point in the story the year had changed from 1795 to 1796. In Ep #366 (the first 1795 episode), Nathan reads from Barnabas and Josette's wedding invitation that the date of their upcoming wedding is to be December 20, 1795 - and later in the original storyline, but in an episode (Ep #420) prior to the events dealt with in the flashback in question, Nathan picks a wedding date of March 2nd and Millicent complains it's only a month away, making it February (and, actually, Ep #420 was originally aired on February 2nd). Though it certainlty doesn't help that the opening monologues continue to refer to the year as 1795 even after the year had changed to 1796. :-
-
[spoiler]In 1897, when Kitty goes to the Old house and sees the portrait of Josette, it says Boswell 1797....we NEVER saw the aritist's name on the portrait before[/spoiler] and we never do see it there again afterwards.
I have no idea why they kept changing the year from 1795 to 1796 or 1797. Then again that's the LEAST of some of the show's problems with inconsincities.
-
I have no idea why they kept changing the year from 1795 to 1796 or 1797.
Because the writers were too lazy to go outside and ask the fans, "What year was the 1790s flashback?"
-
I have no idea why they kept changing the year from 1795 to 1796 or 1797.
Because the writers were too lazy to go outside and ask the fans, "What year was the 1790s flashback?"
Oh my god, what a perfect comment!!! [lghy] .......if only they had created a group of fans they could call on when they no longer had a clue what they had already done...... in some cases it would have worked better than asking one another!!!