Midnite, first off, yes I do remember Ashenrider very well.  He was a great contributor to the old Sci fi B-board and I always enjoyed discussing DS with him.  I hope he is doing well.

Secondly, thanks for checking on that scene for me.  I have just not had the time, with work, to do it, but I knew it didn't look right to me and had all the charactristics of an edit.  Now the question is, why the edit?  When the edit was found in the last set, we were told that it was an error made by the company that is converting the masters to digital format and that there was no intention of trying to clean up the errors in the show.  Okay now an edit has been found not just once now but twice and again it is at a point where an error existed (this time technical) but it also removed part of the scene that was originally there.  Yet we have been repeatedly told the DVD's will be uncut versions of the original episodes.  Now, it is true that these DVD's are being taken from a different set of masters than the VHS tapes were made from.  It could well be that edit exists in the masters they are using for the DVD's, which was the reason given for poor quality in one scene in volume 5 of the DVD's that clearly doesn't show up in the VHS version.  However, at the time that error was found people began questioning MPI about that difference and then the next set it was the editing out of one of the most famous goofs in the show and now this edit.    I will buy that two versions of master tapes may differ somewhat, but two have two scenes edited in two sets of DVD's both times at points where errors of some type existed, makes the explantion of the first one questionable and the claims them not trying to clean up the show and that the DVD's are going to be uncut versions of the series,  even more questionable.  I would like very much to hear what our MPI rep has to say on the subject of this edit.

Raholt 

There is mention made of pirates and Naomi's jewels, but that is well before teh 1795 flashback.  Actually that goes back to just before Barnabas is released from the coffin and Mrs. Johnson is telling Willie about the legends of the Collins family and their jewelry.

Raholt

I know that at times it sounds like I'm picking apart DS and in particular this segment of the series, but I will tell you that I am a fan who looks at the show in a realistic way.  What I means is that I see the show as something I enjoy but also as something that is flawed at times and not perfect.  Some flaws, I excuse.  like actors goofing up or technical mistakes, but I'm far more hard on plot and story continuity problems.  I see most of those as being something that could have been controled because the previosly written material had to be available later on and with a bit of research many of the plot and story errors could have been avoided.   Therefore I'm more critcal of story errors and plot inconsistencies.  I just can't help it.  What has always fascinated me about DS and kept me being a fan of the show since it's original run was not the acting or the actors (I did enjoy the performances of most) or the special effects, but the story and the telling of the story.  The story is what kept me coming back for more and more.  I think the story overall is magic and more fascinating to watch unfold than any classic play, film or book.  So bare with me, if I sound too critical of plot points and alike, but for me I'm a fan of the story and when it is not what it should have been, I'm a bit disappointed.

Raholt

That is true that no mention of a ship is made except that Gerard had served with Quentin on board a ship, but the name of the ship is not mentioned that I recall.

However in the case of the Children, that plotline is made to be very important in 1970.  You are led to believe that not only was David and Haley in danger in 1970 but that it was somehow a rehashing of what happened to Tad and Carrie in 1840.  However in the end, the children are really not prime players in this segment.  Carrie is more so than Tad, but neither are put in the kind of danger that Daphne seems to fear for David and Haley in 1970, yet she clearly asks Gerard if it has to happen like it did before?  In the end, you wonder why the children were involved in the whole matter at all in 1970.  Unlike with 1897 where the events of 1968 and 1969 play a role in the plot line of the past, with the concern being for David in the future, no such thing happens with this plot.

I think the one thing that doesn't happen with 1840 that did happen with the plot leading up to 1897 is there is no reason given for why the ghosts suddenly appeared at Collinwood in 1970.  In the Quentin storyline, it is Chris and his curse that bring Quentin restless spriit back.  It is also his need for forgiveness from Jamison who he sees in David that is a driving force for his ghost.  Also his hatred for his family and their descendents makes him want in death what he could not have in life, which was Collinwood. 

In 1840 we have nothing to explain why the ghost show up when they do.  There is no event to explain why they came back when they did and why they had not come back before.  Had a grave been disturb or a room found, something to show how and why the restless spirits of Gerard, Daphne and the children came back it would have worked to better tie 1840 to 1970.

What was really going on behind the scenes was a franic race to do bigger and grander things each day.  Dan Curtis was pushing for something to happen each day and the pace of the show was on manic.  It is because of this that so many continuity errors occured.  The importance was on effects and having a major event everyday, rather than what had made the show so successful all along and that was telling a good story.  Up until the end of the 1897 flashback, the show seemingly could do no wrong.  Then the Leviathan storyline came around and that was followed by PT 1970, which might have been better had it no coincided with the production of House of Dark Shadows.   So much of the main cast being away for so long caused that storyline to drag and never live up to the potential it could have.  Then we had the 1995 flashforward which was quite good and very interesting.  Returning to 1970, we had 6 weeks of setup for the trip to 1840 and that was all those 6 weeks were about.  Then the story did not flesh out the setup, which really made that whole segment virtually worthless.

As someone else pointed out earlier, this segment had great potential but then it went off course and started rehashing previous plotlines.  We had the introduction of new characters and a new family line, the Drew family, but very little was made of the new sources for new stories.  Instead we see another version of Trask, which after Rev. Trask and Gregory Trask, the rest just paled in comparsion.  It was like because Jerry Lacy's, Tony Peterson didn't work, that he couldn't play anything except someone name Trask.  The most interesting part of this storyline is in the early part of this segment for the most part.  Toward the end we really start to go a bit crazy with the direction of the story and characters really begin to lose their definition.  During this time, without giving away the plot we have one of the biggest goofs continuity wise with a character being killed off who was essential to a later time period.  Finally with this segment we have the ulitmate end to the whole Barnabas and Angelique storyline, which to this day I have mixed feelings about.

Like I said originally, I do enjoy watching the 1840 storyline, not as much as 1795, but it is enjoyable to watch, but still I see that there was a great deal wrong with it that should not have happened and could have been avoided.

Raholt

It is true that people living into their 70's was a bit atypical but into their 60's was not that unusual.  Women did tend to die younger than men and that was because of the number of children most had.  It is not that unusual to find a man married to his first wife until she is in her 40's or around 50 and then next you see him married to a 20 or 30 year old woman.  The wife has died in the time between.  Unlike today, where woman typically outlive the men, it was the other way around back then.

To the person who mentioned Joshua still being alive at in 1840, were he would have been an old man, based on his gravestone in the Mausoleum.  He would have been slightly older than Ben.

Now Ben tells Barnabas that Joshusa has been dead these many years.  It makes it sound like he died right after Barnabas was placed in the coffin, but he is implying he has been dead for sometime.  Then when Ben is questioned about Daniel, who Barnabas refers to as 'the boy," Ben says he is an old man now.  That statement has always bothered me because in regard to Ben, Daniel is still a spring chicken.  More accurately, the writers should have portrayed Daniel as being ill and that affecting his mind and stayed away from the references to age.  Given that Millicent wasn't all there, they could have played on it being a trait that ran in that part of the Collins family.  I've always thought it would have been interesting to see Millicent in that time, if only briefly.  She could have caused Barnabas a few scares with her way of saying whatever came to her mind.  In the end all that is revealed of Millicent is that she never had a happy day in her life. Now Millicent being about 10 years older than Daniel could have qualified as an old lady and a crazy old lady at that and that might have made for an interesting character.

Another point that was made by another poster about this storyline is that what was shown in 1970 ulitmately plays very little part in what happens in 1840, is so true, especially with regard to the children storyline.  That storyline in 1970 was at the forefront, but nothing is made of it after they go into the past.  I know David Hensey apparently left the series during this part of the story, but I've never understood why nothing was ever made of that part of the story while he was still there.

Finally, another point that has bothered me about this storyline is that  in 1897, Edith Collins knew the family secret...Barnabas.  Her husband told it to her and he had been told it by his father, Daniel.  Now why in 1840 did nobody, including Daniel, know about the family secret.  By the 1897 storyline, Joshua, to deminish the chances of Barnabas being released from his coffin had decided to tell Daniel about what became of Barnabas and this info was to be passed down to one person in each generation.  I can buy that after 1897, that info got lost so as to explain why those in 1967 didn't know about him, but if someone, Edith, knew in 1897, then someone had to know in 1840 and that fact, a fact played up prominently in 1897, is totally ignored in 1840.

Raholt   

Quote from: Raholt on September 19, 2003, 04:34:28 AM

57 is not really an old man.

Well given that life expectancy in the U.S. in 1850 was 38.3 years. . .i'd say 57 was probably considered old .. and Ben ancient. . . now as to the other discrepancies. . .pure DS.  But folks often forget that it's only in the last 60-70 years (around 1940) that folks started living on average over 60--

Actually, from working on my family history, I have found that it is not really that true that people died off at earlier ages back then than they do now.  It is true there was a higher mortality rate, especially in infants and  children, but adults on average lived into their 60's and some, just like today, lived into their 80's or 90's.   It is true that there were more things that could kill you then than there is today, meaning that they did not have the medicines we have today so even a common cold was a serious matter, but on the whole most people did live what we would consider, even today, a decent lenigth of time.

Raholt

[spoiler]You can try to make this whole plotline and ending for it make sense but it is impossible to do.   Here is where it really gets complicated.  In 1840, Angelique releases Barnabas from the curse she put on him in 1795.  At that point in 1970, that Barnabas should have ceased to exist and the family in that time should not have known anything about any Barnabas, except the one that lived in 1795.  There should never have been a 20th century Barnabas Collins as far as they were concerned.  Because he was released from the coffin and released from the curse in 1840 , all events after that point should have been altered, with no vampire in 1967 for Willie to release, thus no Barnabas, cousin from England in 1971.

For that matter the 1897 storyline does the same thing, in that Barnabas of that time is no longer in that coffin and does not return to it for Willie to find in 1967 so at that point the family should not have known him when he returned from that time.

Each time history was changed with the regard to other aspects, it had affects in the present day, but not in regard to Barnabas.  In 1840 the changes there to the fate of Daphne and Gerard, cause their ghosts not to come and Collinwood not to be destroyed so why would changing Barnabas's fate in 1840 cause the same alterations in the future as well.

For that reason, I gave up trying to make the plotlines make logical sense years ago and just enjoy the stories.

Raholt[/spoiler]

This same entrance (the doors anyway) will be used as the entry to a room in the East Wing of Collinwood, later on in the latter part of the 1840 sequence.

I will admit that this part has always been baffling to me, since the original door to Josette's room was also there, as Daphne almost exits by way of that door at one point.  The only thing I can figure was that there was some kind of constrant with the set, the position of it or the use of another set that did not allow for them to set up the hall outside the doorway, which was needed for the scene, on the side that the original door to Josette's room is on so they made this change for this segment.  I know it was tight quarters on that stage and that might have had something to do with it.

Raholt