Love that movie am going to check my listings now but isn't SCiFI the same throught the country!!

I would have thought so, but from what others are saying, apparently not!

I checked the TV listings in my local newspaper today, and now it says that there is "PAID PROGRAMMING" in that time slot.  (Probably one of those ab tighteners.)

Then I checked TV Guide online, and it said the same thing.  Then I did a search in TV Guide online for "Uninvited," and in my area it's now scheduled to show at 2 a.m. on Friday, April 5.  I'm trying to figure out if that means "late night Thursday" or "late night Friday."

?!?

I kind of doubt the video stores here have it.  The "Blockbuster" store carries mostly just that -- "blockbusters" -- the latest tripe, in other words.

I was excited to see that SciFi is now airing "Forever Knight."  I used to catch it late-nights when it originally aired on one of the major networks some years ago.  At that point, I had never had cable, so I hadn't seen DS as an adult (except for half a dozen episodes I saw whilst living in California, when it was airing on a PBS station).  Consequently, I was "vampire-starved," and "Forever Knight" got my blood rushing ...

As I viewed most of the episodes yesterday (having returned home early because of a snowstorm, and having made it without serious harm despite my car sliding down a hill sideways ... followed by another car that came down backwards ... a near-miracle that we didn't hit any other vehicles) I found it not quite as good as I had remembered ...

It seemed to me that the last episode that aired in the chain-reaction was the best, which showed how Lacroix had become a vampire in ancient Egypt (was this pre-Anne Rice?), and I found that episode especially good because you learned more about the AMBIVALENT (my favorite word lately) relationship between Nick and Lacroix.

Does anyone know whether these were the first 12 episodes of the series?  I haven't seen the first episodes yet that SciFi aired yesterday, but have it all on tape.

Now that I'm recovering from my near-heart attack after receiving an e-mail message from the administrator that I had been removed from the board (were my comments on the supernatural really THAT controversial?), I've decided to REALLY push things ...

(I was relieved to find the thread saying that the same thing had happened to others, but my heart is still pounding ...)

Actually, my title for this thread is mainly an attention getter  ... While it MIGHT be an interesting topic to debate in light of current world events, I fear that such debate would not be healthy for this board ...

So, I RESTRICT my comments to this sense:  Is Angelique a terrorist, in a non-political sense?  In other words, does she seek to terrorize, cower, and strike at innocents without mercy or conscience to get what she wants?  Whether or not she has a legitimate gripe, does that justify her actions?  Oh boy, that actually probably could serve as a definition for a political terrorist.  Let's just keep the discussion from veering into current events and mention of specific nationalities or peoples ...

One might argue, on the other hand, that in Josette's case, at least, Angelique might actually be doing Josette a big favor -- Josette will not become one of the cursed undead.

Other comments upon viewing yesterday's excellent episodes ...

Strong acting by Grayson Hall as Countess DuPres.  In fact, I think this is some of the best work she has done in the series up to now.  She seemed very natural and real in her concern for Josette, her suspicions, her fears.

Louis Edmonds was superb, which isn't too surprising.

Has Vicki been visited by an Avon saleswoman in her jail cell?  It looked like she had had a makeover.  (Hope I'm not encroaching on Luciaphil territory here ...    )

Three clues ... I think these were 1) a lost ring, 2) the sound of glass breaking, and 3) a storm ...

I love the tension that this builds, but as those who have seen the complete series know, the tension will be much more prolonged when even more interesting clues are presented in the 1897 storyline ... and there'll be a further twist of the screw when we get to 1840, when the ingeniously devised clues even cross the centuries ...

A sense of hopelessness in the face of fate ... that's a feeling that I realize DS often gives us.  No matter what the characters do, if something is fated, it can't be stopped.  (Oh, there will be a breath of relief, of optimism, at a couple of pivotal points in the last few months of the series ...)

It makes me think:  would I want to know future events that may be in store for me?

Vlad

My own experience is very similar to Donna's.

I tend to be a skeptic, especially when it comes to TV psychics, faith healers, etc. An early hero of mine was Houdini, who effectively debunked the "mediums" of his day (showing how they secreted "ectoplasm" in various body cavities, for example, that the "spirits" then produced). I am especially angered by those who prey on the grieving, though in some ways I think the "victims" get what they want.

On the other hand, I've had a handful of experiences (usually accompanied by a "weird" feeling, like Jennifer mentioned) that made me feel that there is more to our life experience than meets the eye.  (I would describe the "feeling" as similar to what you feel in a deja vu experience.)  I later read about hypnogogic hallucinations (apparently not uncommon; waking up paralyzed, with an awareness of a spirit presence in the room), which matched one of my experiences to a "T"; so I can't discount psychological explanations entirely even for my own experiences.

Would have been nice to see the ghost of Sarah again in present day, but then again she did say at the seance she was returning to her own time and would never appear to any of them again. I would expect David to mention her once in awhile though, especially to Amy.

Forgetting (or at least not referring to) events of the fairly recent past seems to occur frequently on DS.  I'm assuming this is fairly standard for "soaps."  The story moves on, new viewers tune in ...

It tends to make the show less real, more in its own world.

Interesting comments about "Medea," Nicky. "Medea" is probably my least favorite of the Greek tragedies I'm familiar with, though that could be due to the production I saw of it a few years ago; it wasn't a play I had read previously, so perhaps I'd have a more favorable opinion upon reading it.  

I'd be interested to read that paper you wrote on Greek tragedy and mythology!    I don't recall the plays I read all those years ago as deriving from mythology per se (but rather, the Trojan War, Oedipus, the Bacchanals, etc.), but this could be an aspect of the tragedies I was unaware of (or am forgetting).

I agree with your comments about Angelique--at times you think no one could be more sadistic, and then you'll see another side to her character.  At this point in our viewing, I can't believe that I eventually felt she and Barnabas really did love each other by the end of 1840, I think it was.  

Creating that ambivalence within the viewer toward her character was a brilliant move, whomever was responsible.

I'll definitely be scouring the TV listings for those movies, Luciaphil!  Thanks!      

An observation made in the episode where "Rev." Trask arrived ...

This was the first time I noticed that you could really see outside the front entrance of the Old House ... maybe it was the camera angle or something ... but anyway, you could see the wide front portico and its pillars beyond the front door.  

In other words, the view DID correspond with the outside shots we have of the old house.  There must be steps going up to the portico in front, just as in the slides!

More recently (i.e., when Trask was exorcising "the witch"), a large hedge seems to have been planted right outside the door, on the portico!

Could it have been in a moveable planter, I wonder?  Strange that landscape work should have been done when the family had already moved to the new house!