Posted by Ben on January 30, 2002 at 18:04:07:
In Reply to: Re: "Looking Sharp on Today's Episode" posted by Bob the Bartender on January 30, 2002 at 16:22:14:

I wish that Barnabas would follow his cousin's stylish example and wear more blazers and sports coats. I don't know, but with that same drab navy blue suit, Barnabas is starting to look like a cross between Richard M. Nixon and Steve McGarrett of Hawaii 5-0.

I think Barnabas' dreary and ultra-formal wardrobe effectively reinforced who he was: a gentleman raised in the refined, society culture of the 18th century, who is now forced to adapt not only to the 20th century, but to the turbulent changes defining the 1960s.

It appears that Barnabas had to emerge into modern society with little or no advice on fashion. He probably thought the Edwardian suits vaguely captured the spirit of a bygone century, and so he felt comfortable in them, even if the Collinsport Gentlemen's Shop didn't have his size (or wasn't open at night). I would have loved to hear Carolyn compliment him on his Beatlesque sense of fashion, and then see his bewildered reaction.

I'd give Barnabas more fashion points than Nixon, whom I found far more drab and un-stylish (even when he grew his hair and sideburns longer and adapted the "dry" look in the early '70s, in an effort to look "mod").

I'm always amused that Barnabas' least formal outfit is that lounging robe, which drapes over his shirt and tie and suit pants. It would be a stitch (no pun intended) to see him in pullover sweaters, turtlenecks, and jeans (bellbottoms, of course). I mean, does he really have to stay dressed up while lying in his coffin? And even if he updates most of his wardrobe, I don't think he'll ever part with that cape.

Bob the Bartender, who is looking forward to meeting you, CastleBeee, along with Gerard, Jean, Steve, Midnite, Ringo, Ben, ProfStokes, and the rest of the Dark Shadows gang in 2003!

Thanks for mentioning me, Bob, but do you really mean 2003? I'm sure we'd all love to see you at the Fest this year.

Ben

Posted by Ben on January 27, 2002 at 06:00:19:
In Reply to: Alf's Dad arrives soon?? posted by Julia99 on January 27, 2002 at 00:44:34:

Sorry but the actor who takes over Dave Woodard's part (as a result of the-then actors strike) reminds me of the actor who played ALF's dad, Max Wright .. . something was really lost in this re-casting. . .sorry to say

David Gerringer -- Dr. Woodard #2 (do we even REMEMBER Dr. Woodard #1?) -- infused passion, integrity, inner strength, and a responsible, caring, paternal attitude into his character. He was a believable doctor who connected with the other characters, especially Maggie, Sam, and Julia.

[spoiler]Had Gerringer still been playing Dr. Woodard when Barnabas and Julia killed him, I think that would have been truly shocking. The fine work of all three actors would have made that scene a pinnacle of the entire series.

I am at a loss as to how the actor who replaced Gerringer got cast, actors' strike notwithstanding. He displayed none of the attributes that made Gerringer's Woodard such a strong character. He couldn't have given us a blander Dr. Woodard -- did he even watch any of Gerringer's work or DS at all? To his credit, he did rescue Sarah and Barnabas when they forgot their lines. But when Barnabas and Julia killed him, I felt nothing for him. It was Frid and Grayson's dramatic acting that carried the scene and evoked my emotional response, certainly not Gerringer's replacement.[/spoiler]

Ben

Posted by Ben on January 20, 2002 at 12:02:27:
In Reply to: Re: What if Liz and Roger Learned the Truth about Barnabas? posted by ProfStokes on January 20, 2002 at 10:58:35:

Of course that information would be difficult to deal with, but I think that it would have been balanced by the memories of the many positive things that Barnabas had done for the family. By the latter half of the series, the time to which Joey is referring, Barnabas had come to the family's rescue countless times and shown himself to be a loyal and caring member of the Collins family. Even if his trips through time may have occasionally wiped out the knowledge of some of his deeds, I think the Collinses would have still had enough reason to know that Barnabas was not a threat to them, and so would have been forgiving and protective toward him.

Hi, ProfStokes -- Yes, as the series progressed, Barnabas proved himself to be perhaps THE most loyal and courageous member of the Collins family. It's conceivable that most of the Collinses would be sympathetic and supportive of him. My point is, isn't it necessary for Barnabas' survival that ALL -- not just most -- of the Collinses agree to support and protect him? I could see someone like Roger having to be dissuaded from his initially brash, judgmental, and stubborn reaction -- and by the time Roger turned around, it might almost be too late. That's why I wonder whether Barnabas could ever take the risk of revealing himself to his modern day family.

Perhaps that's the series finale I would like to see: Barnabas wins the overwhelming sympathy and support of his descendants, but not until after some tense and life-threatening episodes involving characters we would least expect to be a threat to him.

As an aside, perhaps the one character I wish Barnabas did reveal himself to is your esteemed namesake, Elliot Stokes (although I like to think that the wise Elliot somehow had already figured out Barnabas' secret for himself and chose to remain discreet).

Letting my imagination run wild,
Ben

Originally posted by Ben on January 20, 2002 at 05:35:59:
In Reply to: Barney posted by kuanyin on January 19, 2002 at 10:06:21:

I must admit I would appreciate this dark version of Barnabas a lot more if he wasn't so stupid! It is a shame that they are making him so obtuse. If David has been in the secret spot of the mausoleum, then he KNOWS ABOUT ME (huh? how does one prove the other?) and has to die. If Maggie's memory is returning, then she HAS to die. Then Sarah plays her little tune and he goes all to pieces. For one thing, if Sarah was such a little angel who loved him SO MUCH and would NEVER betray him, then why does he instantly conclude that she told David about him?

The human Barnabas of the upcoming 1795 storyline was intelligent, rational, trusting, and kind. But the horrific events of 1795 -- betrayals, losses, a curse, death, initiation into the eternal undead, rejection by his family, and being chained in his coffin for 175 years -- left him paranoid about everyone and everything. Three harsh lessons that this intelligent, gentle man learned were: (1) trust no one; (2) always anticipate the worst; and (3) the worst will come sooner than later.

I don't think the Barnabas of 1967 was stupid. For example, he brilliantly manipulated Vicki into sympathizing with him for being investigated by Burke. But all too often, his paranoia clouded his intelligence and led to a series of rash, impulsive actions. He remained intelligent, but his emotions left him short-sighted.

There are times when Julia and Willie persist in reasoning with him to talk him out of one of his schemes, and we sometimes see Barnabas smart enough to come around to their viewpoint.

But there are also times, I admit -- albeit a few -- where Barnabas just dropped the ball. Not having a better alibi about his family in England, as well as what he does during the day, are two instances where I just roll my eyes.

Ben