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

436
Calendar Events / Announcements '15 I / Re: Penny Dreadful
« on: March 08, 2015, 11:04:06 AM »
looking forward to this. looks great.

437
Current Talk '15 I / Re: Discuss - Ep #0888
« on: March 01, 2015, 07:01:08 PM »
it was always fun trying to spot important props from previous storylines displayed as "merchandise" at the shop.

438
Calendar Events / Announcements '15 I / Re: Salem
« on: March 01, 2015, 01:21:09 PM »
the Lawless addition strikes me as rather calculated stunt casting with this series. a deliberate attempt to attract a "particular" audience. this thing is tailor made for the "comic con" crowd.


I watched the first season on Netflix. the sets and special effects are totally cheestastic. entertaining in a spectacularly stupid way.  [snow_rolleyes]

439
Current Talk '15 I / Re: Discuss - Ep #0888
« on: March 01, 2015, 01:09:53 PM »
The Leviathan selection process is kind of like the dream curse. Some people are chosen, some are not. The Paul Stoddard situation seems to be unique. He is obligated to them but retains enough free will to be aware of what they're really up to. It doesn't seem that he was taken over the way the others were. And you have to wonder why they didn't make him more subservient. Making him pod Paul would have things easier for them.

Megan & Philip are great characters, the first link to the world outside the estate since Joe went crazy and Maggie left the diner. It would have been nice to have kept them around.


I like the Todds as well. and you're right about the "outside world". starting in 1967 and for a long time afterwards the scope of the story becomes extremely myopic with most of the action taking place on or near the Collinwood estate. this storyline reintroduces the sense of Collinsport the town for the first time since 1966. the antique shop is a great set...

[spoiler]and it's interesting to be reminded that for a character/actor who has subsequently become so strongly associated with the series Quentin/David Selby's appearance in 1970 must have at first been a "surprise" to viewers at the time.[/spoiler]

440
Current Talk '15 I / Re: The Cannery
« on: February 15, 2015, 05:41:46 PM »
Roger did indeed give Vicki a tour of the cannery...

it was a 1966 episode where Roger wanted to get Vicki out of the house for some reason. so he created a ruse about wanting to give her a "tour" of Collinsport and the cannery. they went into town, visited the cannery, had lunch (or breakfast) at the diner and then I think Roger brought Vicki into the sheriff's office for some reason. probably something to do with "the pen" or giving him an alibi maybe for the night of Malloy's murder. something of that sort.

it was an episode that amply employed the early exterior footage.

441
Current Talk '15 I / Re: The Cannery
« on: February 13, 2015, 10:23:02 PM »
"still" there???

I don't believe a fish cannery could operate in the pre-industrial age.  [snow_huh]

442
Current Talk '15 I / Re: The Cannery
« on: February 13, 2015, 08:42:32 PM »
I'm not seeing what a plot development from 1840 has to do with the cannery [snow_huh] [snow_huh] [snow_huh]

443
Current Talk '15 I / Re: The Cannery
« on: February 08, 2015, 02:14:15 PM »
and...

I don't recall if the cannery was mentioned explicitly but let's not forget Louis Edmonds' frequent absences were always explained by Roger being in Boston or Bangor on "business trips".

so the family business always remained something of a background presence. 

444
Current Talk '15 I / Re: The Cannery
« on: February 07, 2015, 01:17:50 AM »
I don't recall it being mentioned in specifics...

but it was the established background source of the family's income and wealth. and the financial hardships that plagued the family during the early episodes ceased to be a factor after the show went supernatural as well. or at least they were never mentioned. the last time it was hinted at was when Roger was looking at his "rich cousin from England" as a potential source of income in 1967.

445
if I could guess...and this is just a guess...there is a fringier element of the fandom that wants it to be taken more "seriously" with a capital S...


not associate it with kitsch or camp or nostalgia or feminine "soap opera" connotations. but serious, macho "sci-fi" stuff.

for me the naive 'time capsule" element of it is intrinsically part of it's charm.

446
what on earth is with Mr. McBride's sour grapes attitude about this launch  [snow_huh]


where does he think an old soap opera is supposed to be reaired??? obviously I own the series on DVD but I think this airing is a cool thing. I don't have cable but I just learned I get this channel over-the-air. it's a goof. and a little goes a LONG way but it's evocative of the cozy old "nick-at-nite" lineups. a caught a couple episodes of 'get smart' last week that were fun.

I think this is a 3 day "binge". obviously this will not cover the entire 1225. do we know what pair of the series will be shown??? I will assume based on how the series has been syndicated in the past beginning with the episode 201 Barnabas release and proceeding from there?

I think it's cool.

447
Current Talk '14 II / Re: Vicki's parentage
« on: December 21, 2014, 12:51:18 PM »
and apart from an ordinary desire for "resolution" of a major story thread left dangling the reason this particular plot point is still so important to fans for all these year was the warmth and chemistry Joan and Alexandra brought to their time together on the series. that's where the "emotional impact" is. those performances. otherwise "Elizabeth" and "Vicki' are just names typed into a script.

and for me the reason this plot point will always remain open to me is we never got to see Joan and Alexandra play those scenes. it was never resolved on the OS...

so all the comic books, audiodramas and festival skits in the world doesn't provide that "closure" at least for me.

448
Current Talk '14 II / Re: Vicki's parentage
« on: December 21, 2014, 12:34:11 PM »
i can see Curtis' desire to retroactively "fix" what he perceived as flaws in his original story. and certainly fans of the OS coming to the 1991 version wanting "resolution" on this particular plot point might have taken some comfort in this "reveal"...

but as a stand alone series, and for a new viewers coming in "cold", I don't see what dramatic impact this "revelation" would have had as the narrative stood. or even if it makes any sense. the fact that Vicki was an "orphan" was mentioned in passing as a nod to original story. but it wasn't a major plot point by any means. and I don't recall the reason she came to Collinsport being a search for that answer. no sooner did she arrive than Barnabas was released from his coffin and she just became the "new" Josette. the "mystery" surrounding her parentage wasn't even a factor in the story.

and who was Elizabeth? this lady who poured tea, threw costume parties and spoke with a British accent for no apparent reason??? the character was written as a nonentity with no backstory to speak of. so in terms of the story at hand (again with no associations with the OS) what difference does it make if she suddenly announced she was Vicki's mother??? what does that bring to the story???

I don't see the importance of it. [santa_undecided]

449
Current Talk '14 II / Re: Vicki's parentage
« on: December 14, 2014, 03:28:45 PM »
in terms of the 1991 series Elizabeth was written as such a nonentity, and Vicki's orphaned backstory merely a passing reference, I never understood what the "emotional impact" of the Liz-as-Vicki's mother "reveal" was supposed to have had. in this iteration of the story Vicki functioned mainly as the modern day "Josette" counterpart. her backstory and parentage were somewhat beside the point.

this theory also introduces the rather icky bug-a-boo of Barnabas and Vicki being blood relations albeit several generations apart.

if this revelation had indeed taken place in a second season it seems more like one of Curtis' clumsy attempts to retroactively "fix" what he saw in hindsight as flaws in the original narrative.

450
Current Talk '14 II / Re: Today in Soap Opera History (October 31)
« on: November 02, 2014, 03:01:07 PM »
Crawford was the "understudy" for her viperous daughter Christina during her brief acting stint. apparently she begged for the role...

at the time it probably seemed like too big a piece of "stunt casting" for the producers to resist. but I'm sure they secretly knew it was train wreck television. and of course in retrospect it was grotesque.