751
Current Talk '05 II / Re: Where was the Secret in 1840?
« on: September 06, 2005, 01:02:43 AM »
Daniel told Gabriel that he (Gabriel) was just like his mother, so she must have been a conniving kind of women.
News:
by a streaming service? KLS thinks so!
Be sure to check out: KLS talks to Soaps.com
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 »
752
Current Talk '05 II / Re: Jeremiah Collins
« on: August 28, 2005, 08:55:00 PM »
This is the first I have heard of Robert Gerringer playing Jeremiah Collins in 1795. I guess they would have used the original story of Josette arriving to marry middle aged Jeremiah as Barnabas told Julia on Widows Hill.
As for Anthony George, perhaps he would have played Peter Bradford?
As for Anthony George, perhaps he would have played Peter Bradford?
753
Current Talk '05 II / Re: The July 4th Epsodes (Spoilers!)
« on: July 05, 2005, 08:31:17 PM »
The marriage of Liz and Paul did not have an ending due to the supernatural.
754
Current Talk '05 II / Re: George Mitchell
« on: July 05, 2005, 08:27:50 PM »
I liked George Mitchell too, but they probably felt they needed a more menacing looking actor to play the role for Vicky's kidnapping later on, so they got Thayer David.
Dan Curtis never used an original actor of a charcater that got recast in a second role. Once they were fired, that was it for them.
Dan Curtis never used an original actor of a charcater that got recast in a second role. Once they were fired, that was it for them.
755
Current Talk '05 I / Re: expecting vic?
« on: May 29, 2005, 11:20:05 PM »
They could have hid her pregnancy behind a couch or bed or something like that. She probably would have played Rachael Drummund in 1897, who might have lasted the whole of 1897.
756
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Chris Jennings
« on: May 29, 2005, 11:17:28 PM »
Don Briscoe was originally cast in 1840 as Randall Drew.
757
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Carl / contains spoilers
« on: May 01, 2005, 05:13:18 PM »
As John Karlen wanted to leave DS at the time, they never should have brought Carl back at all just to permanently write him off 1897. They should have done a Tony Peterson on him and never show him again as Carl was not important to the 1897 story.
758
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Sad Fates of 1966 Characters
« on: April 17, 2005, 05:00:24 PM »
I am not a nitpicker, but please don't use that green color for the text as I have to click and shade what you write to read it. Its really hard on the eyes.
759
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Sad Fates of 1966 Characters
« on: April 16, 2005, 05:58:22 PM »it's even more ironic that even though the popularity of the barnabas character is indirectly responsible for the misuse of the 1966 characters he's not actually the one doing most of the damage.except for his early victimization of maggie it's the assorted and sundry monsters that come after him that really chew these people up.
barnabas loved vicki and his family so it would have pained him as much as anyone to have them suffer so.
[spoiler]i haven't actually seen the episodes where jeb hawkes throws vicki off widow's hill yet.but i have a question.
why would they "kill off" a character who had already left the show?how does vicki factor into the leviathan plotline?weren't the producers always hoping that alexandra moltke might be lured back to the show?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]that is the only time Vicky and Peter are referred to in the Leviathan story. The ghost was to be Paul Stoddard, but Dennis Patrick was unavailable, so in their infinite wisdon they decide to use Peter Bradford and the death of Vicky as an alternative! They either could have used an unseen ghost of Paul or another actor playing it instead.[/spoiler]
It is sad what happened to the 1966 characters. The show should have remained with one supernatural character at a time after 1795 ended with some regular soap opera story regarding the supporting cast. The show would certainly have lasted longer and they wouldn't have run out of stories so fast.
760
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Vicki as Josette
« on: March 31, 2005, 01:41:01 AM »
It appeared that the writers had no clue as to how Barnabas became a vampire in pre-1795 episodes. There isn't even a hint of how it happened. Barnabas never brought the subject up with either Julia or Willie and neither one even asked him. That would probably have been one of the first questions one would ask in that situation.
When I first watched DS, I remember seeing that episode where Barnabas is telling the story of Josette's suicide and saying to myself "At last, now they finally revealed what really happened!" lol. This episode is also only a month before 1795 begins, so they still hadn't outlined the deatils of it yet.
Barnabas' original origin seems to have taken place over several years instead of five months from 1795-1796. The writters obviously didn't know they were eventually going to tell a five month flashback. The time period it originally was intended for was apparently the 1830's as Barnabas was said to have left for England "130 years ago".
Ron Sproat said that they originally were going to tell Barnabas' origin through books and ghosts instead of Vicky going back in time. If they had gone that route, then they could have used the material they had been mentioned for the past eight months.
When I first watched DS, I remember seeing that episode where Barnabas is telling the story of Josette's suicide and saying to myself "At last, now they finally revealed what really happened!" lol. This episode is also only a month before 1795 begins, so they still hadn't outlined the deatils of it yet.
Barnabas' original origin seems to have taken place over several years instead of five months from 1795-1796. The writters obviously didn't know they were eventually going to tell a five month flashback. The time period it originally was intended for was apparently the 1830's as Barnabas was said to have left for England "130 years ago".
Ron Sproat said that they originally were going to tell Barnabas' origin through books and ghosts instead of Vicky going back in time. If they had gone that route, then they could have used the material they had been mentioned for the past eight months.
761
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Julia AND Dave Woodard: Two Victims?
« on: March 28, 2005, 01:39:57 AM »Now that I've seen what gets published in the medical literature, I'm even more unclear as to what exactly she expected to publish or gain out of treating Barnabas. I'm also imagining the reactions of the peer-reviewers
Perhaps she wanted to be recognized as one bringing the dead back to life, though I could image that her peers would probably be horrified/outraged/stunned at what she did with such a being as a vampire.
Though, with Maggie being kidnapped and the attacks on the other girls in town, I would think the authorities would have had to put Julia in jail for being intangled with the perpetrator and knowing all that he did without trying to bring attention to the police. I would think her medical career would have been over.
As for what would have become of Barnabas, he couldn't have possibly had any peace one her experiment was made public and would either have been put in prison or forced into going into seclusion somewhere.
762
Calendar Events / Announcements '05 I / Re: a letter from nancy
« on: March 20, 2005, 11:17:37 PM »
I was at the "Judy and Bea" performance this past Friday night and really enjoyed it. "Judy" stated that she was the first choice for Liz Stoddard but recommended Joan Bennett get the role. Imagine if Judy Garland was cast as Elizabeth? Maybe she would have lived a lot longer, though its hard to picture her in the role as JB was excellent in it.
I loved Nancy's singing and she looks really good and very friendly, coming over to all the tables to say hello.
Here is a picture I asked to take with Nancy.
I loved Nancy's singing and she looks really good and very friendly, coming over to all the tables to say hello.
Here is a picture I asked to take with Nancy.
763
Current Talk '05 I / Re: maggie's memories
« on: March 20, 2005, 05:48:54 PM »
The writers made it even worse when they had Magie and Barnabas be romantically involved during the Leviathan storyline. I was like "huh?". Before 1897, when Maggie was the governess, neither of them had any attraction to the other.
Especially after all Barnabas had done to her when he first apeared, this was a horrible idea to have her be interested in him.
They should have gotten a new character to romance her.
Especially after all Barnabas had done to her when he first apeared, this was a horrible idea to have her be interested in him.
They should have gotten a new character to romance her.
764
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Will the REAL Angelique please stand up!
« on: March 15, 2005, 07:58:47 PM »
If Frid just didn't want to play Barnabas as a vampire, but would play the role as a normal man, why did they bother with 1841 PT for? They should have returned to 1971 and tie up all the loose ends.
I always thought 1841 PT was written for the purpose of having JF play a different character as he threated to leave DS if they did not give him another character to play.
I always thought 1841 PT was written for the purpose of having JF play a different character as he threated to leave DS if they did not give him another character to play.
765
Current Talk '05 I / Re: Will the REAL Angelique please stand up!
« on: March 15, 2005, 05:40:46 PM »
Actually when Barnabas first sees Angelique in 1840, he is horrified to see her when he shouldn't have been. The last time they dealt with each other they were in a cordial relationship. he should have been happy that she was there so she could help him fight Judah Zachary. Though there is also the fact that she doesn't remember anything chronologically post 1840, which is another discrepancy.
It would probably have been better to use the Judah Zachary story in the present time and avoid 1840 and time travel altogether. By this time, I was tired of every story taking place in another time period and just wanted to see the present time characters I was familiar with for the past few years.
It would probably have been better to use the Judah Zachary story in the present time and avoid 1840 and time travel altogether. By this time, I was tired of every story taking place in another time period and just wanted to see the present time characters I was familiar with for the past few years.