Were the Quentins different?  In small ways, I'd have to say yes.  I think the main problem that arrives with the David Selby characters is that they're all named Quentin.  In your mind (or at least in my mind), all the Quentins start running together and its hard to tell which one cheated on whomever he cheated on or something to that effect.

Anyway, my fave characters go as follows:

Ghost Quentin: This was this storyline that drew me into DS in the first place and his mysterious presense had much to do with me sticking with the series.

1897 Quentin: His progression from the bastard who barged into Collinwood to his passionate admitance of guilt to Beth's ghost at the end of the 1897 was great.  He surely had fumbles along the way, but this incarnation of Quentin was a fully rounded figure. However, hiis subsequent appearance in the present day did not live up to his 1897 material.

1995 Quentin: I think crazy Quentin is a somewhat natural progression from his 1897-1970 self.  This Quentin had a lot of guilt so when everything falls apart, he obviously has a certain amount of self hatred and it drives him up the wall.  Once again, a really nice characterization.

What was wrong with the other Quentins?

1970PT Quentin: He was a boor.  If I had been Maggie . . . ugh . . . lets just say that someone would've been cleaned out by a divorce settlement.

1840 Quentin: He was, I suppose, fine and I really liked his relationship with Daphne (they looked so nice togehter).  He just didn't have the same spirit as 1897 Q.  He seems more like a victim of circumstance than someone who had an active role in his own life.

1841PT Quentin: Once again, I don't necessarily dislike this Quentin.  He had a certain amount of worldy weariness to him that I liked.  However, there just wasn't alot to him.

NoDS Quentin and Charles: They could have been interesting characters but were not given time to grow.

Nicole

Excuse me, but what is an indistinguishably Dark Shadows story?  The writers were notorious for ripping storylines from horror, science fiction, and gothic novels/movies.  Dark Shadows stories are variations on stories that have been told for ages.  Sometimes those stories were well adapted (the 1968-9 The Turn of the Screw storyline for instance) or badly adapted (perhaps the Adam/Eve rip that had once been called Frankenstein).  It may be important for the show to stay within its genre, but its more important for the stories to be well told.

I don't understand why so many are harping on the "all teenaged cast" issue.  I can't think of WB show that has an all teenaged cast that is still being shown today.  I know someone else has brought this point up before (please forgive me for not remembering your name), but WB shows such as Everwood and Seventh Heaven do give time to develop their adult characters.  Angel is cast with actors way into (or out of) their twenties.  These shows appeal to people of all ages.  For example, my parents, both of whom grew up on the original Dark Shadows, are addicted to Buffy and Angel and are religiously collecting the DVD sets.  Why?  Because they find something within those shows with which they can relate to, regardless of the fact that they may be older than the cast.  That, at least in my opinion, is what a good show does.

How much like the original Dark Shadows should the revival be?  I don't really know.  I think we all have things we love about the original but we must realize that this new show cannot recreate those settings.  Can a new show be as good as the original?  Maybe not for an original fan, but, for a new fan who has little familiarity with the original, this new show may obviously eclipse it in the mind of a new viewer.  Of course, any positive interest that this new show brings to the original show can only be good (like sparking greater interest in the movies for instance).  If this revival makes it past the planning stages, I think all we can hope for is that they professionally tell a good story that sparks enthusiastic discussion as the original has done so well.

I don't really think Joshua comprehended what he was doing by chaining Barnabas into the coffin.  He didn't have the heart to kill him, but he wasn't willing to set him free.  So, at the time, this may have seemed to happy medium.  At that same time, I don't think most people quite comprehend that whole immortality thing.  One can think in terms of days, weeks, months, decades fairly easily (maybe...) but once you get past that, it's hard to really imagine how long eternity is.  Maybe Joshua thought there would actually be an end for Barnabas (he'd starve or something of that nature)?  

But beyond that rambling, it could also be that Joshua just wanted put the whole thing behind him.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Who'd have thought that someone would go searching for a room that not a lot of people believed existed?  Had it not been for Willie, no one would've ever known.

Have to vote for Briscoe, although there were a few times watching Selby that I was convinced he'd throw out is back if continued to bend that way.

**Spoiler**


Amy, after being summoned to the house by Quentin and carrying down the Rachel dress, hid from Barnabas and Willie by sneaking behind the curtains.

OMG!  This is too, too funny.  You summed up the summer so well  

I'd definitely throw in another vote for Adam.

Also I'd like to mention

S
P
O
I
L
E
R




Amanda Harris.  Being drawn without a personality must have been disheartening; she sure makes it hard for us