DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Polls Archive => Topic started by: PennyDreadful on January 02, 2006, 07:22:16 PM
-
I thought this would be an interesting poll.
I'm curious - do DS fans consider Jamison Selby's audio drama 'Return To Collinwood' to
be 'in continuity'? In other words, is this part of the actual DS storyline or more a non-continuity story with the DS actors? I feel it's most definitely not in continuity. I look at it as sort of like those Star Wars novels that George Lucas sanctions. They are not officially part of the storyline.
-
No. If it didn't happen on the show, it isn't to be counted.
-
I haven't listen to it yet, but I still don't think it is official. Just because it was written by one of the actors' children and performed by original actors doesn't make it official. It is still a "what if" story.
Misa
-
I haven't see "Return to Collinwood"...I debated on purchasing it on CD, but never actually did. I do know what happened in it.
Like PennyDreadful mentioned, I kind of liken it to the Star Wars novels. Not officially canon.
-
An interesting question! I consider myself a bit of purist on the issue in that I think that only what happens onscreen qualifies as true continuity. Therefore, none of the novels are canon, including those written by DS personnel, and not even Sam Hall's TV Guide article that shows up on one of MPI's tapes (which I don't feel was written in the spirit of DS anyway, but I digress); the DS books are definitely fun, but are not actual continuations of any of the series' or movies' storylines. That having been said, how much credibility can be given to a potential continuity story that has Carolyn married to Ned Stuart? :D
-
how much credibility can be given to a potential continuity story that has Carolyn married to Ned Stuart?
[santa_thumb] GMTA! [santa_grin]
-
For me, if it didn't happen on the show, it didn't happen at all. That's just what I think. [snowball]
-
i missed the actual performance of 'return to collinwood'(i was with a group of fans in the hotel bar).
but as many have said if it didn't actually happen on the show it's not canon in my opinion.
not the movies.not the ross novels.not the 91' revival.not this play.
these to me are extensions of the d.s. franchise but if it didn't actually occur on abc television between 1966 and 1971 it's simply not canon.
-
I don't really think of the 1991 series as an extension. I kind of view it separately, as its own thing. It's canon in its own universe...for example, if a radio play or novel came out expanding on the revival, I would say those weren't canon, but an extension of the revival series. But the novels, Sam Hall's epilogue (which I felt was mixed - a few things sounded like something that could happen, but other things just struck me as being way off) "Return to Collinwood", etc, I agree with.
I echo Midnite's comment about Carolyn being married to Ned Stuart in "Return to Collinwood" completely. [santa_smiley]
-
No.
I have some interest in the Dark Shadows spinoffs, continuations, extensions, whatever - whether they are the novels or new series or HODS or NODS. But only what happened on the show, between 1966 and 1971, is the true "Dark Shadows."
Interesting that the Sam Hall TV Guide article was brought up - I wouldn't have thought of that. And I agree with the comments that it seems out of place with the tenor and events on the show. I can't help wondering if it was written tongue in cheek.
The only way we would know what really happened after 1971 is if the series had continued. Imagine the possibilities if the original show still continued uninterrupted today ...
[8_2_73]
-
I too feel the Sam Hall article is off-base in many ways and is definitely not canon. I suspect DC would have nixed several of those ideas.
The books, comics etc are not in-continuity either IMO.
-
i have to agree with above statements as i consider myself a DS purist
i would have loved to see the show continue in 1971 with the real Barnabas
(in my mind) and julia,chris quentin and so on.... i do love some of the fan fiction
but to me it just is this could have happened!
jennifer
-
I am also a purist and have generally shied away from fan fiction or even licensed novels because I couldn't reconcile the events and characterizations with what I saw on the show and because I didn't trust in the accuracy of anything that wasn't actually on DS. The Carolyn/ Ned Stuart pairing is the most glaring incongruity in "Return to Collinwood". I can only recall one exchange between these characters on the series and don't recall any allusions to Ned being a lawyer. It would have been more accurate to put Carolyn and Tony Peterson together. This play was constructed around the actors who were available at the time, and though it holds up in most respects, I still don't accept it as canon.
Thank you, Penny, for launching this great discussion. :)
ProfStokes
-
I haven't heard or seen it (and from all accounts, Jamison is a very talented writer), but since it was not part of the broadcast series, it can't be part of the canon of DS.
It goes without saying that NONE of the "Marilyn Ross" novels are DS canon, either--thank the Gods!
Sam Hall presented his original article (in text that I don't think made it to the version on the videotape) as possibilities for the fates of the characters. I do love the idea of Barnabas and Julia marrying, especially in Singapore...
G.
-
In 'Return to Collinwood' some of the characters & situations just seemed 'off'. For example, Willie and his wife Jessica behaved like a funny sitcom couple - a bit out of character for Willie IMO. There was some decidedly non-DS style writing. The Carolyn/Ned pairing didn't work for me either - at all.
A couple of things that I liked, and could see happening - the reading of the will was pretty good, with the revelations [spoiler]about Vicki.[/spoiler] David as an archaeologist made sense too, since that kid was always exploring every ancient and forbidden place he could find.
The Sam Hall article was interesting, and featured some plausible "what if" scenarios but I really don't think a lot of it would have made it onto the screen. Of course Sam would have his own wife marry the show's star! If ol' Sam had Barn get back together with Josette, Grayson would have put him in the dog house for sure! [santa_wink] IMO Dan Curtis, plus the rest of the writers on the show, would've had to include their own input in order to make such speculation more accurate. I suspect DC would've put the kibosh on some of those concepts. The article is definitely not in continuity IMO.
Ok, here's another question - So we are all (so far) basically agreeing that only things that happened in the show are canon.
So...
[spoiler]Does this include Vicki's demise as revealed in the Leviathan sequence?[/spoiler]
For me, yes, of course. It's canon. No question. It yeilded repercussions in the present, and led to a plot thread which took place over several episodes.
[spoiler]I dislike what happened to Vicki, but the plot point didn't bother me so much because, as we all know, on DS most folks just don't STAY dead. I imagine that something might have taken place later to rescue Vicki from this fate. If not, well, Vicki's death certainly fits in with the tragic endings for many characters in the show.[/spoiler]
Just another thought to ponder since several folks have commented in the past that they don't accept this sequence despite its existence within the context of the show.
-
And there you hit upon a great point, PennyDreadful, and it leads me to a contradiction because I'll readily admit that I have a tendency [spoiler]to ignore Vicki's senseless death in the Leviathan storyline. I just can't accept the lame way that they tossed her death in there and never dealt with it. I also have to admit, no surprise here, that I ignore entirely Barnabas saying he always loved Angelique, because I'd fear for my dvds and tv otherwise.[/spoiler]
So in a way, it's a bit hypocritical of me to say anything about canon, since there are parts of it that I ignore. But then, the actual series was hardly strict with continuity/canon. DS contradicted itself during its run. So where does that leave the issue of canon when it comes to DS?
I thought about that when I posted my last reply. Great point. :)
-
For me, yes, of course. It's canon. No question.
Exaclty. I hate that that plot point was thought up and executed (not to mention HOW it was executed), but it happened on the show, so it is most definitely canon. There's no way to get around it. :(
I think that most of the people who say they refuse to accept it simply like to outwardly pretend that it never actually happened. Hell, sometimes *I* like to pretend it never happened, too. But deep down, of course, we all know it did happen and we have to accept it, no matter how much we dislike it. But as you say, in the DS universe no one ever really stays dead. So, rather than refuse to accept it, perhaps we should simply choose to think that had DS continued they would have eventually come up with some way to rectify it...
-
Well, a lot of horrible stuff happened on the show, and then was later reversed. The DS writers seem to have been blissfully unaware of the principle of Temporal Paradox, so they literally got away with murder on that show! I'm quite sure that the "end" to the Vicki storyline would have been changed by subsequent events, had the show continued--the fact that it happened during the last year meant that did not happen in canon.
I did like Dale Clark's suggestion of how this particular story might have been resolved, in the first of a very long series of novels he wrote some years ago.
G.
-
If it didn't happen during the run of the original series, it didn't happen, period.
-
i haven't yet seen the storyline development under discussion here about the fate of vicki.
but since i am currently watching the leviathan arc it's an upcoming inevitability.i know what number episode it is and have always planned simply not to watch it because i know i'll find it upsetting and had planned to join those who simply refuse to accept this as fact.
but as has been pointed out here since it actually did occur on the show it is canon.
however as mysterious said no one ever really stays dead in the d.s. universe.if the series had continued,if alexandra had wanted to return,there is certainly nothing to say that a storyline where,for example,barnabas orders angelique to undo the events surrounding vicki's death and she's brought back couldn't have been written.that all this happened towards the end of the show's run of course meant none of that could ever come to fruition but it's not outside the boundries that the show had set up for itself.
-
Sam Hall presented his original article (in text that I don't think made it to the version on the videotape) as possibilities for the fates of the characters. I do love the idea of Barnabas and Julia marrying, especially in Singapore...
I love the idea of Barnabas and Julia marrying in Singapore too. I also like the idea of Maggie and Joe getting back together again and getting married. I didn't like the idea of Chris killling Sabrina and then killing himself when Amy desperately needed him to take care of her.
-
I don't really get the whole debate about canon, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, be it novel, comic, book, CD or whatever, they're all stories with their own merits. For what it's worth, a sequel with the original actors, produced by Dan Curtis Productions is as about as official as you're likely to get. But, does it really matter if it's "canon"?
All that canon really means is "I like this story less than this story" -- ultimately, it just doesn't matter. If someone likes something enough, they'll make it fit, regardless of how contradictory or illogical it might be. Note how many fans dismiss the Leviathan and Vicki developments off the bat.
I know the original DS episodes from back to front, and much as I enjoy them, there's a finite amount of mileage to be had from them. I'll happily embrace any new stories or ideas, becasue I'd prefer to look forward rather than back. With audios and novels there's a potential for Dark Shadows to feel alive and vibrant, rather than trapped in the past tense. I think it's a great pity if fans really do dismiss new productions out of principle for such a flimsy reason.
-
stuart,
i don't think any of us who's opinion differs from yours deserve to be "pitied" and our reasons for thinking that what happened on the original series is canon are "flimsy".
it's nice that you enjoy new offerings under the d.s. banner.i'm sure many of them are quite good.
but,and i can only speak for myself,the sense of being in a "past tense" is part of the charm of the show.it is a time capsule of sorts.
i won't go so far as to compare d.s. to great cinematic works but no matter how many novels,sequels,comics,etc. one could come up with for "gone with the wind" or "the wizard of oz" there are just fans who will only accept what actually happened during the two or three hours of the original films as what was real about them.
-
I don't really get the whole debate about canon, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, be it novel, comic, book, CD or whatever, they're all stories with their own merits. For what it's worth, a sequel with the original actors, produced by Dan Curtis Productions is as about as official as you're likely to get. But, does it really matter if it's "canon"?
All that canon really means is "I like this story less than this story" -- ultimately, it just doesn't matter.
This reminds me of Star Wars... Many people will never accept the prequel trilogy or come to love it the way they do the original. Some will ignore it completely (I know many people that will be happy to). Others embrace both trilogies as one saga... It's different for everyone, which I think can apply to what you're saying above. I read a couple of the novels centered around Episode 3 and thought they were a lot better than the actual movie. Canon? No. But in the end, if you look at it that way, you're right...it doesn't really matter.
-
stuart,
i don't think any of us who's opinion differs from yours deserve to be "pitied" and our reasons for thinking that what happened on the original series is canon are "flimsy".
There's a difference between considering something "a pity" and telling someone that they are to be "pitied". And I'll happily reiterate that it's a pity - disapproving of something out of principle rather than for its actual merits does seem needlessly negative. I guess it's the whole attitude of trying to find reasons *not* to like something.
-
I don't really get the whole debate about canon, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, be it novel, comic, book, CD or whatever, they're all stories with their own merits. For what it's worth, a sequel with the original actors, produced by Dan Curtis Productions is as about as official as you're likely to get. But, does it really matter if it's "canon"?
All that canon really means is "I like this story less than this story" -- ultimately, it just doesn't matter. If someone likes something enough, they'll make it fit, regardless of how contradictory or illogical it might be. Note how many fans dismiss the Leviathan and Vicki developments off the bat.
I know the original DS episodes from back to front, and much as I enjoy them, there's a finite amount of mileage to be had from them. I'll happily embrace any new stories or ideas, becasue I'd prefer to look forward rather than back. With audios and novels there's a potential for Dark Shadows to feel alive and vibrant, rather than trapped in the past tense. I think it's a great pity if fans really do dismiss new productions out of principle for such a flimsy reason.
Beautifully put, Stuart. With any franchise, there's always the creator, creators, or corporation who owns the title and decides what is canon and what isn't. In the case of Dark Shadows, anything produced by DCP should be considered canon unless otherwise stated. However, in truth it really doesn't matter because it doesn't take anything away from the quality of the CD, comic, novel, etc. That decision is up to each individual person.
-
I think it's a great pity if fans really do dismiss new productions out of principle for such a flimsy reason.
I certainly wouldn't "dismiss" a new production if I felt it was in truly in the spirit of DS. I enjoyed Lara Parker's novel and parts of the audio drama. I have also enjoyed some fanfic such as Charles DTroll's continuation (which, in many ways, captured the DS 'feel' moreso than RTC or Sam Hall's article did IMO). Are any of those things "in continuity"? No, IMHO. Can I fully enjoy them despite that? Sure. Of course. I love a good DS story. I think the confusion here lies in "official continuity" versus "personal continuity." As Barnabas'Bride mentioned, this type of debate goes on in other fandoms as well.
Sure, we can each construct our own personal continuity in whichever way we like. For example, I have my own plot/character theories to fill in holes in the DS plot. I also pick and choose from stories I've read, or heard, to construct a personal continuity beyond what we saw in the show. Does that mean anything? No - except maybe that I'm kind of a guber, but hey, it's one of the things I like doing. 'Official' continuity is the show itself. I don't believe that recognizing this "traps" one in the past tense, but rather, is an acknowledgment of the source material as canonical & authoritative.
All this is really neither here nor there I suppose. It's all fiction after all. Except, of course, some of the fiction is 'official'. Hee hee hee. [santa_evil] [a_xmas]
-
i won't go so far as to compare d.s. to great cinematic works but no matter how many novels,sequels,comics,etc. one could come up with for "gone with the wind" or "the wizard of oz" there are just fans who will only accept what actually happened during the two or three hours of the original films as what was real about them.
Actually "The Wizard of Oz" film is just an alternate version of what "really" happened in the Oz universe created by L. Frank Baum in the novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and numerous sequels.
I still love the movie, though, and I also thoroughly enjoyed Gregory Maguire's "Wicked".
As for DS, it is amazing how many separate "official" (that is, created by DC Productions) realities there are... you have the universe of the original tv show, the universe of HODS, and the universe of NODS, not to mention the separate realities of the remakes. I wonder if any other series in television, film, or literature has quite as many independent takes on a basic theme involving many of the same characters and locales?
-
Just for the record:
I don't "disapprove" of writing fanfic, putting on new skits, etc. Hell, when I had more time, I used to churn out the fic with the best of them (albeit my production speed leaves MUCH to be desired). I just think there needs to be a differentiation between fic/pastiche/whatever and the original, aired shows. The latter are canon. These are established terms widely used in media fandoms, and I think they are used because they are helpful in charting the complicated terrain of shows that have attracted as much activity on the fic front as Dark Shadows (or Star Trek/Wars).
I have to admit I'll never be able to get very excited about the concept of a remake of the series. Too bad the WB version vanished without a trace. It did sound like something different enough from the original to be judged on its own merits. I'm afraid I find that very difficult to do with the edition DC produced in 1990.
G.
-
All that canon really means is "I like this story less than this story" -- ultimately, it just doesn't matter.
Actually, the American Heritage Dictionary defines "canon" as "(b). a basis for judgement; a standard or criterion."
That's how we're using the term: it (the original series) is the common ground we all share that allows us to compare any and all aspects.
And if it doesn't matter who likes what story, why do we all find it so entertaining to come here and discuss it? [wink2]
-
I saw the performance in New York and found it interesting because of the actors involved. If the show had continued I'm sure that it would have taken different direction. Elmont...
-
I didn't like the idea of Chris killling Sabrina and then killing himself when Amy desperately needed him to take care of her.
it is fun to say what could have happened but i refuse to believe that Chris would have killed himself and left
poor amy behind(notice i don't care what happened to sabrina they say i can be evil [santa_cheesy])but i'm with rainey if if
didn't happen in the first series it didn't happen i prefer to think chris found a cure in europe and went on, with those
movie star looks, to be a big star(not on Dancing with the Stars ick what a stupid show [santa_shocked])
jennifer
-
I saw the performance in New York and found it interesting because of the actors involved. If the show had continued I'm sure that it would have taken different direction.
Exactly. The question of the play being an "official" continuation of the show never occurred to me. I viewed it as a piece of entertainment - nothing more - most likely due to the tongue-in-cheek flavor of the play.
I agree with the sentiment, "if it didn't happen on the show, it didn't happen". Same thing with HODS and NODS - merely adventures in movie-making.
But I love reading good fan fiction. The endless possibilities and areas to explore are so interesting and so much fun.
-
I didn't like the idea of Chris killling Sabrina and then killing himself when Amy desperately needed him to take care of her.
it is fun to say what could have happened but i refuse to believe that Chris would have killed himself and left
poor amy behind(notice i don't care what happened to sabrina they say i can be evil [santa_cheesy])
Actually, something we tend to ignore, probably because we don't want to face the possibility with a character we really like, is that Chris was suicidal. He admitted as much to Joe. And if events did come to pass where Chris was faced with the fact that he had killed Sabrina (who, like it or not, he did love), I can see where that could have been the catalyst to finally push him to go through with it. Chris would have certainly considered Amy, but something tells me he would have ultimately decided that, even though he deeply loved her and he would be leaving her alone, Amy would be better off without him. That was a sentiment that he had often expressed, so it would be completely in keeping with his character. And being confronted with the fact that he had killed the woman he loved would have most probably driven that belief home to Chris all the more.
-
MB, true I agree. Chris was suicidal. However, could Chris have actually killed himself? I mean, literally? According to Jeb's statement in the Leviathan storyline, if a werewolf is killed while in human form it will turn him into the werewolf forever. If Chris didn't know about that little tidbit though, I think he might have tried to go through with it. Ironically, he'd have wound up causing a lot more damage that way. I like to think that someone (Barnabas, Julia, Stokes) would have tipped him off to the news that trying to kill himself would only make things WORSE.
Also, given the outcome of most DS relationships, the Chris/Sabrina union would inevitably have ended badly. But I think Amy would have been ok. She's a carrier of the curse. The werewolf wouldn't harm her. For that matter, Sabrina was generally spared the werewolf attacks too. I think Chris would have probably killed her eventually though. The werewolf kills the one it loves.
-
MB, true I agree. Chris was suicidal. However, could Chris have actually killed himself? I mean, literally? According to Jeb's statement in the Leviathan storyline, if a werewolf is killed while in human form it will turn him into the werewolf forever. If Chris didn't know about that little tidbit though, I think he might have tried to go through with it. Ironically, he'd have wound up causing a lot more damage that way.
Would he, though? I'm woefully uneducated when it comes to actual werewolf lore, but in Ep #944 Jeb warns Bruno that if Bruno kills Chris in human form, Chris will be a werewolf forever - meaning if someone else kills Chris. Does that necessarily mean the same would happen if Chris kills himself? It might be splitting hairs to distinguish between being killed and killing oneself - I don't know. Perhaps the outcome would be the same. But perhaps not. I don't *think* DS ever elaborated on Jeb's statement - and like I said, I have no idea if being killed in human form is something DS made up as merely one of the 1001 bizarre things they threw into the end of Leviathans or if it's actual werewolf lore that we could research. [idontknow]
I like to think that someone (Barnabas, Julia, Stokes) would have tipped him off to the news that trying to kill himself would only make things WORSE.
Well, presumably Stokes never knew Chris was a werewolf. At least we never saw anyone clue him in and I don't believe we saw anything to indicate he was ever suspicious of Chris. Actually, it's funny now that I think about it, but did Stokes ever comment on the werewolf attacks or even the possibility of there being a werewolf in the area? Perhaps he did, but no scenes are coming to mind. And if not, perhaps that was a deliberate choice on the writers' parts because they thought it might have complicated the storyline too much for Stokes to have become involved in it.
As for Barn and Julia, who knows if they were ever aware that if Chris was killed in human form, he would be a werewolf forever? They certainly never made mention of it when they suspected that Chris might have tried to kill himself when he was poisoned by Quentin's ghost. And I don't honestly recall Jeb mentioning it to Barn. But then, I try to recall as little as possible of the Cheap Insufferable Pig's scenes. [b003]
-
Chris was suicidal. He admitted as much to Joe. And if events did come to pass where Chris was faced with the fact that he had killed Sabrina (who, like it or not, he did love), I can see where that could have been the catalyst to finally push him to go through with it. Chris would have certainly considered Amy, but something tells me he would have ultimately decided that, even though he deeply loved her and he would be leaving her alone, Amy would be better off without him. That was a sentiment that he had often expressed, so it would be completely in keeping with his character. And being confronted with the fact that he had killed the woman he loved would have most probably driven that belief home to Chris all the more.
He must've forgotton about what happened to her the last time she lost a brother. When Tom died, Amy suffered a breakdown and had to be sent to Wyndcliff.
-
I have no idea if being killed in human form is something DS made up as merely one of the 1001 bizarre things they threw into the end of Leviathans or if it's actual werewolf lore that we could research.
I haven't heard of this legend outside of the DS universe, although it might exist elsewhere. I'll have to look into it.
Well, presumably Stokes never knew Chris was a werewolf. At least we never saw anyone clue him in and I don't believe we saw anything to indicate he was ever suspicious of Chris.
Ostensibly he never knew, but, I think he did. In one episode (can't recall the number), Julia (or Barnabas?) mentions saving David AND Chris in front of Stokes! Stokes says nothing about it. He does not acknowledge the remark. He keeps quiet, but he must have known something was up with Chris for that comment to be made. I wish I could recall the episode. It might have been one of those episodes during 1897 where they flash to the present and Barnabas is in the I-Ching trance with Julia and Stokes standing near him. My memory is hazy on the ep, but I distinctly recall the mention of saving Chris being made right in front of Stokes.
Actually, if anyone were to tip Chris off to the specifics of his condition, it might be Quentin who most likely knows more about it than the others.
-
Actually, if anyone were to tip Chris off to the specifics of his condition, it might be Quentin who most likely knows more about it than the others.
If only. It was a major crime that the only scene there was between Quentin and Chris that addressed anything remoting resembling their relationship or their shared "problem" was that one all too brief scene when Quentin found Chris in the woods after transforming back into himself. One would like to think they shared more offscreen - but they most definitely should have shared much more onscreen. >:(
-
Ostensibly he never knew, but, I think he did. In one episode (can't recall the number), Julia (or Barnabas?) mentions saving David AND Chris in front of Stokes! Stokes says nothing about it. He does not acknowledge the remark. He keeps quiet, but he must have known something was up with Chris for that comment to be made. I wish I could recall the episode. It might have been one of those episodes during 1897 where they flash to the present and Barnabas is in the I-Ching trance with Julia and Stokes standing near him. My memory is hazy on the ep, but I distinctly recall the mention of saving Chris being made right in front of Stokes.
It's ep #835. Barnabas' body has just disappeared from the Old House basement in 1969 thanks to Edward's interference in 1897:
Robservations 3/3/03 - Edward's Prisoner - #834/835
Only moments before in that same scene you referred to, Stokes questioned Julia about a comment Barnabas made in the letter she received from him that was sent on that same date in the past-- that Edward had learned his secret. It's extremely puzzling that Stokes would analyze that to death, yet he'd accept her statement about all being "lost for David and Chris" without showing any reaction.
-
It's extremely puzzling that Stokes would analyze that to death, yet he'd accept her statement about all being "lost for David and Chris" without showing any reaction.
It IS extremely puzzling. And it's frustrating that the scene really gives no indication of what Stokes might have been told about Chris. For all we know, however, Julia had simply pulled one of her infamous I-can't-really-explain-Eliot or I-can't-tell-you-that "explanations" and Stokes doesn't know much - possibly only that Chris is *somehow* involved with Quentin's ghost and/or Barnabas' trip to the past. And what would certainly seem to lend credence to that likelihood is that in Ep #889, when Stokes makes mention to Julia that he's begun working with Sabrina to try to restore her memory, Julia inwardly panics, she tries to discourage Stokes by saying she believes he's fighting a losing battle, and once he leaves Julia's face shows grave concern. Not the reactions one would at all expect if Stokes already knew Chris' secret.
-
If on Dark Shadows a werewolf who is killed while in human form becomes a werewolf forever, then when Beth shot and killed Quentin he should have become a werewolf. But he didn't so Jeb must have been wrong.
Misa
-
Well, given that werewolves and Leviathans are enemies, perhaps it's only that if a Leviathan kills a werewolf in human form, it will become a werewolf forever. That *might* explain away Beth's shooting of Quentin - though, of course, it's merely a circumstantial explanation to try to justify the inconsistency. Sadly, like so many things that were thrown into the end of Leviathans, Jeb's statement wasn't really elaborated on (and very strangely, Barnabas, who was supposedly the all-knowing Leviathan leader, flatly stated at one point that he didn't even know the werewolf was Jeb's enemy ::)), so there's no way to actually say for sure. But if so, it would certainly seem to eliminate the notion that if Chris killed himself, he would become a werewolf forever...
-
I don't see how Chris could decide that Amy would be better off wiithout him when she desperately needed him to take care of her. The last time she lost a brother, she suffered a breakdown and had to be sent to Wyndcliff. Who would take care or her with him gone? He knew she couldn't take care of herself.
-
Collinwood was a veritable Home for Strays.....they'd already taken in Vicky and Julia. Chris had no reason to think they wouldn't take care of Amy.
-
If on Dark Shadows a werewolf who is killed while in human form becomes a werewolf forever, then when Beth shot and killed Quentin he should have become a werewolf. But he didn't so Jeb must have been wrong.
True, unless the curse had already been removed by then in the original course of events in 1897. We only saw a brief snippet of what took place in the unaltered 1897. Just a possible explanation. I suppose Jeb could have been wrong, but he reacted so strongly to Bruno's suggestion of killing Chris in human form, that he seemed to have a good idea that the result would be permanent transformation. MBs speculation that the change might happen only if a Leviathan does the killing is a good one too.
-
Actually, something we tend to ignore, probably because we don't want to face the possibility with a character we really like, is that Chris was suicidal. He admitted as much to Joe. And if events did come to pass where Chris was faced with the fact that he had killed Sabrina (who, like it or not, he did love), I can see where that could have been the catalyst to finally push him to go through with it. Chris would have certainly considered Amy, but something tells me he would have ultimately decided that, even though he deeply loved her and he would be leaving her alone, Amy would be better off without him. That was a sentiment that he had often expressed, so it would be completely in keeping with his character. And being confronted with the fact that he had killed the woman he loved would have most probably driven that belief home to Chris all the more.
Well, if it didn't happen on the first series, it didn't happen. All we know is that Chris took Amy and Sabrina and left Collinssport.
-
No. If it didn't happen on the show, it isn't to be counted.
Well, if it didn't happen on the first series, it didn't happen. All we know is that Chris took Amy and Sabrina and left Collinssport.
Yes, but we witnessed his near suicide in ep #897. Chris left a suicide note for Carolyn (not Amy, who was already living at Collinwood) and had a gun in his hand when [spoiler]Crazy Jenny appeared to him and talked him out of dying by saying there's hope if he finds Quentin.[/spoiler]
Though he didn't succeed at killing himself, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for this character because we know that someone who has attempted suicide once can remain vulnerable to it, especially since Quentin, as it turned out, failed at helping Chris find a cure.
I don't see how Chris could decide that Amy would be better off wiithout him when she desperately needed him to take care of her. The last time she lost a brother, she suffered a breakdown and had to be sent to Wyndcliff. Who would take care or her with him gone? He knew she couldn't take care of herself.
He must've forgotton about what happened to her the last time she lost a brother. When Tom died, Amy suffered a breakdown and had to be sent to Wyndcliff.
By broaching this subject, I mean no disrespect to anyone here that has lost someone dear from suicide. But, sadly, a person in such despair that suicide seems the only option may not be thinking rationally; he or she may not be capable of considering the feelings of family and friends. For them, suicide is truly an act of desperation.
-
I don't see how Chris could decide that Amy would be better off wiithout him when she desperately needed him to take care of her. The last time she lost a brother, she suffered a breakdown and had to be sent to Wyndcliff. Who would take care or her with him gone? He knew she couldn't take care of herself.
By broaching this subject, I mean no disrespect to anyone here that has lost someone dear from suicide. But, sadly, a person in such despair that suicide seems the only option may not be thinking rationally; he or she may not be capable of considering the feelings of family and friends. For them, suicide is truly an act of desperation.
Chris may also have rationalized that his suicide would be for the greater good. The world would be a safer place without him, if he could not be cured of lycanthropy and was likely to kill someone each night the moon was full. Yes, Amy would have been heartbroken to lose him, but she most likely would have had a solid support network (e.g. the Collins family, Joe if he ever came back from Windcliff) to provide for her needs and offer comfort. It's a depressing scenario, and I'm glad it didn't happen on the show, but it's not implausible.
ProfStokes
-
i'm currently watching the leviathan episodes and one thing about them that surprised me was that the whole chris jennings/werewolf plot basically picked up where it left off before the 1897 storyline began nearly a year before.
remember the show has a habit of abandoning old plots when new one come along.after 1795 nearly everything that had happened before was tossed aside and the storyline went in an entirerly different direction.
i had assumed that something would have happened in 1897 that would have somehow reversed the curse and that part of the plot would have been over and the focus would have been primarily on the leviathan story.in this barnabas' nine month oddesy in the past was sort of pointless(although david was made well again).
the werewolf plot seems a bit like left-overs here.
-
Nope, if it didn't happen on the show, it ain't *canon*! ;) I don't even consider Art Wallace's "Shadows on the Wall" to be canon. Again, what aired on ABC is canon, everything else, including our fan fiction, is not.
-
i missed the actual performance of 'return to collinwood'(i was with a group of fans in the hotel bar).
Gee, wish *I* had been in the bar,LOL! Really it was terrible IMHO. No disrespect intended to the stars or Jamison, but it was BRUTAL to have to sit through. :P It was TOO long and went on, and on, and on, and on, and on....!
-
I am also a purist and have generally shied away from fan fiction or even licensed novels because I couldn't reconcile the events and characterizations with what I saw on the show and because I didn't trust in the accuracy of anything that wasn't actually on DS.
While I agree that fan fiction/fan novels and star fiction are not canon, I still enjoy reading them and writing them. It helps me "fix" some of the things I didn't like from the various plotlines. I also like the "what if" factor. ;)
-
Nope, if it didn't happen on the show, it ain't *canon*! ;) I don't even consider Art Wallace's "Shadows on the Wall" to be canon. Again, what aired on ABC is canon, everything else, including our fan fiction, is not.
I agree, Buzz H. If it didn't happen on the show, it ain't canon. What aired on ABC is canon, everything else is not.
-
What aired on ABC is canon, everything else is not.
I agree with that when it comes strictly to a discussion of the original series, which is mostly what we're discussing here. But like Barnabas'sBride said, each version of DS has its own canon. What took place on the '91 series is canon in that DS universe and it's just as valid for that series as what happened on the original was to it. Similarly with what happened in the DS movies, the Ross novels, the comics, etc. It's just that what's canon in one DS universe, isn't canon in another.
-
If Joe came back from Windcliff, he could marry Maggie and adopt Amy to save her from Chris' self dextruction since he is her cousin.