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.


Messages - michael c

1651
Testing. 1, 2, 3... / Re: what's up with "nun"???
« on: October 05, 2010, 01:46:49 AM »
so tell us mysterious what was up!

i thought i was losing it. more alarmingly i thought a hacker was accessing our accounts.

glad it's over.

1652
Testing. 1, 2, 3... / Re: what's up with "nun"???
« on: October 04, 2010, 12:41:16 PM »
i didn't imagine it.

doesn't it seem strange that there are so many misuses of the same word in one topic?

1653
Testing. 1, 2, 3... / what's up with "nun"???
« on: October 04, 2010, 04:36:07 AM »
every time i tried to use the word "speculate" in the topic on lara parker's new book when i hit the post button it was changed to "nun".

it was changed in older posts too. what gives? [ghost_huh]

1654
wierd!

again the word "speculation" was changed in my post to "nun" even though i tried to modify it twice. weird!

1655
claude...

i'm just as confused(and rather alarmed)as you are. i didn't use the word "nun" in my post. i very clearly used the word "speculation" through some glitch the word have been changed in my post and probably the others too. i recall it being a "hint" of incest in the post about roger and carolyn.

1656
i suppose there were lots of things that were considered "acceptable" in the nineteenth century...you know, enslavement, child labor, the fact that women could not own property or vote...and i guess sexual relations between distant relatives that in the twenty first century are no longer considered acceptable.

so count me among those who would consider such a story about these two characters not as "an interesting theme to explore" but unacceptable. and yucky. very, very yucky.

1657
Current Talk '24 I / Re: A New Slideshow Is Coming
« on: September 29, 2010, 04:38:32 AM »
i guess i'm posting this a bit late but i loved yesterday's shot of maggie and carolyn at the diner.

for some reason one of the things i miss most once the show goes supernatural are maggie's scenes(in uniform)at the diner. i'm not really sure why but i found them comforting. they used this nice musical cue when they panned in on the collinsport inn/restaurant that seemed to vanish too in favor of spookier sounds.

maggie might have been a gossip in the early days and her coffee the worst but she served it up with a smile and a spoonful of sass. i liked that.

1658
Calendar Events / Announcements '10 II / Re: Lara Parker's Third DS novel?
« on: September 26, 2010, 07:28:18 PM »
let me try and understand this...

so parker is seriously going to publish a novel about an incestuous relationship between elizabeth and quentin? or is that just speculation?

and she thinks fans of the series will like that?

apart from being really, really yucky wouldn't liz have recognized quentin when he showed up at her house in 1970 claiming to be yet another hitherto unknown relative coming out of nowhere.

and since barnabas was entombed in the 1920's doesn't that take him completely out of the action? whatevs.

1659
Calendar Events / Announcements '10 II / Re: Lara Parker's Third DS novel?
« on: September 25, 2010, 03:05:50 PM »
as anyone's who's read "the salem branch" can tell you parker is not above a signifigent yuck factor. why should this be any different.

incidentally that novel definitively soured me to any of lara's future fiction writing endeavours.

1660
Current Talk '10 II / Re: WB 2004 Pilot Redux
« on: September 22, 2010, 08:09:39 PM »
the image of a beautiful,dark haired girl traveling up the new england coast came to dan curtis in a dream. so victoria's arrival in collinsport by train seems to be an unchangeable element of the DS mythology.

considering that the series main character is a vampire and time travel a frequent occurrence whether or not trains actually run through maine is a minor quibble.

the series skewed convention even more by making josette a readhead. not traditionally a haircolor associated with ingenues but with wickedness and witches.

for me vicki is a fair skinned,dark haired heroine in the "snow white" tradition. i've never seen the 2004 pilot so i can't say if the actress was good or not but it would have taken some getting used to a short haired blond as victoria winters.

1661
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Discussion on Josette's Portrait
« on: September 13, 2010, 05:03:26 PM »
at lot of DS almost gets told in reverse. a story or character gets mentioned as an abstract concept and only later does it become an actualized flesh and blood character.

that's especially true of josette. she was an idea. a legend. a ghost long before anyone thought she'd end up a real character. so the props department must have bought the painting of "josette" somewhere with that intention and didn't have a portrait of kathryn leigh scott painted the way they did with barnabas' painting and jonathan frid.

1662
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Today's Robservations Slideshow
« on: September 13, 2010, 04:45:16 PM »
i haven't seen the 1897 storyline in years so could someone please refresh my memory?

how did julia end up in 1897? and why? wasn't one grayson hall character(magda)enough?

at least she traveled with her plaid coat. the characters were always so vulnerable,so defenseless to whatever supernatural shenanigans the writers could cook up that sometimes i think that they wore heavy,stiff wool and tweed coats year round almost as a defense mechanism. almost like some sort of armour. it made them feel somehow less exposed.

it's a thought at least.

1663
Current Talk '10 II / Re: 1795 photo of the Old House
« on: September 12, 2010, 03:03:17 PM »
when i first watched this storyline and saw the first images of the old house i was like "pink? really?". it seemed a strange color to choose and i'm not sure how historically accurate it was.

i was always disappointed with how the set looked when the story returned to the present. before 1795 the old house drawing room was a wonderfully aged,rich looking brown. but when they try and make it look "old" again after the bright pink 1795 era it never looks right again. [ghost_sad]

1664
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Discussion on Josette's Portrait
« on: September 09, 2010, 04:04:46 AM »
since kathryn leigh scott had already been playing the ghost of josette collins for several months when the barnabas storyline was launched the writers must have thought(in the name of continuity,still a consideration in 1967)it made sense to have barnabas try and "recreate" josette through maggie evans. but i don't think barnabas(or the writers)ever saw her as the "reincarnation" of josette at that point. even in later years when barnabas ran into josette clones at nearly every turn(and i believe it was established that kitty hampshire was in fact josette reincarnated. or was she actually josette? i forget)it was never suggested that maggie evans was some new incarnation of josette. she just sort of looked like her.

i don't think vicki was ever supposed to "look like" josette. barnabas fell for her because she possessed what he saw as josette-like qualities(virtue.modesty.innocence.dull stuff like that)but not for any physical resemblance. i don't even recall him commenting on her beauty or appearance much at all.

i certainly can't claim to be an expert on french history but frocks i know a thing or two about. the gown josette wore in the portrait and the gown barnabas made maggie wear as josette when he imprisoned her and the gown vicki wears to the costume party and finally the gown we actually see josette herself wearing in 1795 is in the high-waisted "empire style"(pronounced "om-peer" if you really want to sound pretentious and fashiony). this line of dress began to appear in france and throughout the courts of europe in the late 1790's but achieved great popularity during the napoleonic period(1804-1815)through napoleon's wife josephine. hence it's named the "empire style" in honor of the first french empire.

however it began to wain in popularity with the end of napoleon's reign and by 1820 was well out of fashion. so it's not something a high born woman of josette dupre's status would still be wearing as late as 1830. it makes more sense with the revised 1790's timeline.

1665
let me just ask this...

is this whole incident something of a tempest in a teapot?

realistically is there a market of more than a hundred or so people for a video of this event?