Thanks for the answer.  Yeah, I like what Big Finish are doing with the DS range.  I've only listened to the full cast audios and dramatic readings as far as the Doll House.  I like the fact that BF use both writers who are familiar with the show and ones who have never seen it.  It allows for a greater variety and also injects fresh ideas and a more out-of-the box approach to the story arcs of established characters. 

I'm also impressed by BF's reluctance to recast.  When they do there is generally a logical explanation within the narrative (such as with Andrew Collins as Barnabas in 'The House of Despair') or there is a decent age different from when the character appeared on the show (David, Amy, etc.).

And on top of that, they're exceptionally produced and maintain good continuity with the show.  Yeah, I'm a fan.   

That does make sense, Magnus, but my problem with it personally is that it isn't fleshed out enough and, amongst all the craziness, is a little too subtle.  Toss that unconvincing romance with Amanda into the mix and there's just too much working against him.  If his story arc following 1897 had had a little more polish and direction to it then I definitely would have had a greater investment in a wiser, world-weary Quentin, which made sense considering everything he'd experience up until that point.

Sorry, this is a few days removed but I couldn't help putting my two cents regarding the whole Quentin thing.  Quentin's a tragic figure and the best way to finish with him at the end of 1897 would be to see him wandering off into the bleak distance, condemned to roam the world for all eternity never to return to Collinwood.

If Quentin were to return in 1969 it would have to be for a compelling and logical reason which made narrative sense.  Unfortunately there's nothing much in DS circa 1969 which makes narrative sense (which is part why I love it).  Instead what we get here is what essentially what amounts to a hapless retread of the Jeff Clark/Vicki storyline.  Having Quentin return as an amnesiac is nothing more than a half-assed copout.  We've been through so much with this character during 1897 and now the writers decide to hit the reset button!  (Maybe this was just a DC thing but I don't want to place the blame on one individual.)  Okay, he starts to regain his memory with the whole Amanda thing but he's still a shell of his former self.  And as for Amanda... Donna McKechnie comes across very well in interviews but I find her very wooden and un-engaging as Amanda.

Perhaps if Quentin had played a more active role in the storyline I could buy his presence in present time a little more but he doesn't -- he's just sort of... there.  It's as if DC were trying to sell the idea that Quentin was a core member of the present day Collins clan, as integral as Roger or Carolyn or any of them -- all in a very short span of episodes.  But Quentin's just too much of a rebel to fit in that easily.  It's a serious misstep in this section of the show, in my opinion.

Yeah, the whole Roger arc of DeppShadows was really the one part of the movie that kinda worked for me.  The moment when Barn gives RC that ultimatum rang oddly true for me with Barn sticking true to his role of (morally ambiguous) defender of the Collins family.  If the movie had continued more along those lines I think it would have started to have worked better for me.  In fact, if I recall correctly (I've only seen the movie twice and the blu ray special features once) there was a deleted scene involving Barnabas and David playing with toy dinosaurs which was actually pretty good.  Had it been included in the finished product it may have given the scene of RC's departure from Collinwood an even greater impact.

In response to Gothick's question regarding Betty Hanscombe, I've been re-watching the early episodes recently, and, if I recall correctly, Sam Evans said that she died about 25 years before 1966.  So based on Vicki's age, which is about 20 at that time, she couldn't possibly be Vicki's mother.

I've always admired what Curtis and the writers tried to do with the end of 1840, but agree that the execution wasn't really all there.

As a loyal supporter of Barnabas and Angelique, I've always thought the conclusion of their arc was very poignant and fitting.  However, I thought their was very little development of it prior to this, and very little to explain how Angelique turned so quickly to support Barnabas' cause.  This is especially jarring considering that 1840 Angelique is established as being 1795 Angelique 45 years later (I'd imagine that would make sense to everyone), and therefore didn't share the experiences with Barnabas in 1897, 1968 and 1969.  As a fan trying to make it out, I've tried to treat this in terms of narrative time, but logistically it just doesn't work out.

An attempt has also been made to reconcile the timelines, but it's very sloppily done.  Joeytrom has mentioned the lack of a "legacy" character, which I feel would've been especially important here, especially considering the dense, time jumping elements of the story arc as a whole (1995/1970/1840).  Edith, in spite of all her nastiness, really should've been that character, but her untimely death put an end to that.  I guess it could be explained away in terms of 1897 Edith being a different character, but I don't really buy that as 1840 Edith fits in perfectly into 1897 in terms of her generation and family lineage.  Edith being killed off, therefore, would have major implications in 1897.  Who would be the guardian of "the family secret"?  The results of this would be much different due to another person carrying this knowledge, and I'd imagine the effect would carry on into present time.  I agree with Josette with regards to not having a problem with the continuation of the family.  It's not too much of a stretch to imagine they carried on through an alternate line.

There are some other inconsistencies which no doubt would have had a major effect throughout all the timelines but I won't get into it as I think they've already been mentioned a lot on these forums.  I think the cause of them is simply a major case of burn out on the part of the writers.  Barnabas and Julia had been back and forth throughout time so much by this period that keeping up with everything would've been an impossible task.  I'm sure they had no idea that committed fans of the show like us would be discussing this over 40 years later!

My nitpicks don't mean that I hate 1840; far from it.  I have a great affection for the storyline, and I find it to be by far the easiest storyline to write about (even more so than 1795 and 1897).

Articles like this always have to be taken with a grain of salt.  I'm not doubting the reliability of the author, but judging a man's character based on a single isolated encounter is a little unfair.

I thought the dig at Sam Hall's writing was unnecessary, though.  I think SH did some excellent work on the series.  I know in some circles his writing's accused of being uninspired and workmanlike, but I think he had a real knack for sharp, witty dialogue, and I can generally tell a SH script from the others based on that.