DC probably wanted to pad the 1897 storyline more, as the ratings were the highest ever, so he had the writers create a new character and start a romance.  1897 should have been over by this point.

i so agree...

at this point it's all i can do to keep my finger off the fast-forward button i'm so tired of 1897. the only thing making it bearable for me is julia's appearance in the time period(exit magda, thank you very much)but otherwise i'm OVER it.

i've been rewatching 1897 after some years...

i've recently gotten to the amanda harris intro and for the life of me i don't understand why this character came into existence. the storyline's nearly over. quentin is in love with beth but engaged to angelique. the dramatic potential right there is enough. but all of a sudden out of the blue comes this character and all of that gets shoved aside.

angelique gets sidelined. poor beth gets written into the margins. and we're just supposed to accept this "love" because the writers put it into the scripts. does anyone know what was up with this storyline development?

and not since poor betsy durkin's DS tenure has an actress been so miscast. donna mckechnie is a sweet lady and very pretty but just wrong for this part(and this show for that matter). she has zero chemistry with david selby and her teleprompter readings are just brutal.

what's up with this character?

I know I had gotten tired of the Josette part of the series before 1897, and there they did the lookalike angle twice!
I never considered her a major character myself.

yeah having two josette lookalikes in the same storyline was pretty lame.

my impression of it that it was not the original intention to have the two characters but that the storyline went on much longer than originally planned and they needed to find a way to bring KLS back into the storyline and get the "josette thing" going again.

it's funny how perception of age has changed since the original DS run.

michelle pfeiffer is only three years younger than joan bennett was when she took on the role of "matriarch" elizabeth collins stoddard yet while bennett very much looked and played the part as a woman in late middle age pfeiffer is still considered by many to be "young".

that said i do think she's too old to have been considered for the part of angelique.

the "present time" collins family was never the offspring of barnabas or any of joshua and naomi's children for that matter...

they're descended from daniel collins of the new york branch of the family. so one can assume that for these purposes the current collins' are similarly descended from some other part of the family i guess.

as long as liz isn't in high-waist,wide-pleat PANTS a'la 1991 i'll be happy.

we haven't heard a peep about a sarah collins, have we?

seems like that subplot is getting dropped.

given the plot outline i don't think it's necessary...or perhaps even advisable...to have any of the "present time" actors portraying joshua and naomi. they're obviously going to be minor parts so that casting might confuse new audiences not familiar with the traditional turn of events. besides jonny lee miller is too young to effectively play the pompous, blustery joshua and there's a pretty significant age difference between him and pfieffer in terms of husband and wife.

perhaps having angelique be the one to entomb barnabas is simply more expedient given the time frame of a movie versus a series. the storyline appears to be set largely in the present(1972)so the whole story of joshua's reasons for entombing him might be too lengthy to get into.

somehow this plot outline makes the whole thing seem more "real". i'm quite pleased with what i've read.

frankly i can't believe we're hearing those names...OUR names...being spoken of in such a large,splashy context. our little DS world is about to expand exponentially. i'm not quite sure how to feel about all of it but i'm getting very excited.

the plotting sounds somewhat at odds with all of the "funny" remarks. i will say that i believe the decision to set the piece in 1972 allows for alot of visual "camp" in terms of the sets and costuming. otherwise i'm not sure why it's not being set in 1967 or for that matter the present. it's got to be a stylistic decision.

the descriptions of the characters...carolyn as a "rebellious teenager",roger as a "ne'er' do well"...sound alot like the characters we know in the early days of the series. i for one am pleased that vicki is being portrayed as her true self...governess,not waitress. although a small part for maggie would be nice.

sounds good.