The DS 2004 script (dated 1/19/04 Draft) occasionally for sale on Ebay contains elements and characters which I understand were not included in the final filmed pilot.

Does anyone know specifically what details were altered between this draft script and the final pilot?

Has anyone both read the draft scrpt AND seen the actual pilot?  I'd enjoy hearing how the script was changed for filming.  Thanks

I don't remember Dr. Guthrie.  But, seeing the photos and captions here on the website recently, it seems Guthrie is very much an earlier version of Stokes.   Is that correct?

I am am HUGE Stokes fan, and believe he played a crutial role on DS.  I'm surprised to see an earlier character so similar to Stokes.

To those of you who have seen more episode than myself -- what were the major similarities and differences between Guthris and Stokes?

Can anyone help me identify this character appearing kinda late in the series?  He was a balding man, around 40, something of a bad-guy, and I believe he appeared in the "present day"  -- but I can't be sure about that.  It might have been present-parellel time.  The actor was only on the show for a short period and he didn't have any other roles, that I can remember.  The character's most prominant feature was a large scar on his forehead.

The thing I remember about him was this -- the scar was created by putting a piece of Scotch-tape under his eye-brough and pulling it up over his forehead until it "creased" the skin and looked like a scar.  From a distance, it was pretty convincing, but everytime the actor had a close-up, the tape on his forhead was clearly visable.  I was around 10 years old at the time, but it was very clear to me.  Has anyone else noticed this?   Surely some of you with videos or DVD's of the series have noticed this.

Although I don't know the actor's name, I have seen him many times on primetime TV -- especially during the 70s and 80s.

Can anyone remember the character's name and his involvement in the story? 

Was anyone else frustrated by the lack of good storylines in the present, after the show returned from 1897?  After that point, it seemed to me that the writers were bored with the "same ole" characters in the present, but took delight in the freedoms they had to write more dynamic characters in the past, future, or parallel time.

In the present, we had a core family that, for the most part, needed to remain static.  Untimately, no matter what craziness they went through, the present family had to emerge from the story unchanged.  None could die, none could sucessfully marry, no pregnancies, and David wasn't really even allowed to grow up -- hence the pre-1840s stuff with a 14 year old playing with a doll house.

Hope I'm not being too harsh here, but the core cast was a bit like the Flintstones.  At the end of each story, Fred, Wilma, Barney, Betty and the kids had to be okay and unchanged.

That kind of structure usually works on a cartoon, but was a major departure for a soap opera family.  I think that knowing the family had to get through any struggle more or less unscathed, made the writers bored with the cast in the present -- especailly when they could do almost anything to anyone in the past (or parallel time).  The writers probably felt freed to write more exciting stuff everytime the story left the present.  Perhaps that is why they trurned to alternate time-lines more and more often.

In any alternate time, major characters could die, go crazy, murder, become vampires, marry -- they could do all that because there was no expectation that "it would all be okay in the end."

Think about it -- the only major character who ever left the present was Vicki.  Admittedly that was a MAJOR change.  But unfortunately, her exit was minimized.  She disappeared into the past with little fan-fare and was quickly replaced by Maggie.  I'm disappointed TPTB didn't write a wonderful umbrella story surrounding Vicki's exit.  Now, that would have been exciting writing and exiting viewing. The present certainly wouldn't have been boring with a storyline from which Vicki didn't emerge.  (before you flame me, I do acknowlege that both Burke and Maggie left the show too.  But, they left without storylines or real closure.)

I guess what I am really getting-at is -- do you think the show made a mistake by allowing so little change within the Collins family of the present?  Do you think the writers eventually tired of the static characters in the present?  And if so, what could have prevented this?

One thing that could have prevented this problem was to make the Collins family larger to begin with.  Roger and Liz could have had another sibling living out of town.  And that sibling could have had children.  Also, either Roger or Liz could have had more then one child, again living out of town until needed.   Having the option of a larger family could have opened the characters in the present to more dynamic storylines, more change, perhaps even death.

Just my opinions.  Anyone agree?

Would anyone care to speculate on what Curtis planned to do on the 1990 series without the paranormal expertise of Professor Woodard?

Killing-off Woodard that early in the series surely would have left show in great need of an occult expert.  Afterall, the Woodard/Stokes role had been vital to the integrity (and believability) of the original series.

Somehow, I doubt Curtis would have killed-off such an integral character without plans for a replacement.   But, who?

My understanding of the 2004 series leads me to believe that THAT version could have gone-forward without Woodard/Stokes -- his  fucntion might have been fulfulled by other characters.  But, the 1990 version clearly needed Woodard.

What were they planning to do without him?  Any speculation?

Considering the information and advice Stokes often emparted to Julia, Barnabas, and others -- I have often wondered if Stokes may have been the (or one of the) most important character(s) on DS.  I guess I am referring to the the post-Barnabas years here.   Looking back, I really don't see how the show could have progressed as it did, without Stokes.

This thought also makes me wonder what the 1990 show planned to do without Woodard (Stokes), after Woodard was killed.  Which character was going to play the "Stokes" role?  Maggie perhaps?

Also makes me wonder how the 2004 series could have progressed without Stokes. 

Seems to me that in every incarnation of DS --  Barnabas, Julia, and Vickie needed to remain somewhat naive to super-natural occurances.  Stokes seemed the perfect "outsider" to explain what needed to be explained, so that the "stars" could stumble forward in their journey.

Anyone agree or disagree?