I don't particularly care for the 1991 series but I wouldn't criticize the moderators for featuring it on the board.

my recollections of 'the salem branch' are quite dim but didn't parker pull a mary sue move and cast herself as angelique in a sympathetic light and using the name "antionette"


that alone throws the whole thing so far out of whack i cannot square it with OS canon in any way.

interesting point about the locker room scene and moretz's age...


as a related tangent I have often wondered if 'the exorcist' could even get made today in the same way? while there was no nudity per se the language and situations that a minor actress(linda blair)was put through were beyond the pale. i'm stunned it was permitted and wonder if it would be today?

i think i might be more likely to consider the audio series, if not necessarily canonical, but at least part of an "ongoing story" if the forty-odd year span of time between the series' conclusion in 1971 and the present was taken into account. sort of an updated story about what these characters were doing "today"...


but it is to my understanding(i've only listened to two or three)that they pick up where the OS left off in 1971 or shortly thereafter with the actors playing their characters at the age they would have been then.

to me that's a continuity gaffe even at the audio level. touching on the delicate issue of age a 70 year old actor does not sound like a 25 year old character. i don't mean that to be unkind but it's true. that audio difference jumped out at me in the few listenings i gave these.

at the time of the RTC performance it worked because it seemed like a lighthearted festival presentation meant to be taken as just that. i thought it was being recorded merely as a festival momento so to speak. i had no idea it would end up being taken so seriously and then considered canonical by so many.

or maybe it's just the "dramatic readings" and not the "audiodramas" where they are playing the characters at the age they were then. i'm not sure.

in terms of a completely fictitious situation one can believe whatever one wants because none of it is "real" anyways so there's really no way to prove or disprove anything...


but with the recent onslaught of "authorized" and "licenced" and "official" works of fiction debates arise because there are fans that, because of this "authorization", consider whatever the writers come up with to be official DS continuity/canon and then will insist on it.


for instance now there are fans that will tell you in no uncertain terms that Vicki is Elizabeth's daughter. period. end of story. how can they make this assertion when the series itself never resolved this particular plot with any finality??? because the RTC presentation said so!

to me that's a real stretch. since it was unresolved on the television series to my mind it remains unresolved. now what happens if lara's next literary masterwork contradicts the conclusion set up by RTC??? is it negated because lara's work is also "authorized" and "official"


apparently the "year one" comic book series (which I have not read) reveals...
[spoiler]that Vicki lived and died only in the eighteenth century. she did not come from, or return to, 1967.[/spoiler]

this product is also "authorized" but how on earth does one square that with OS canon??? some are calling this series another 'parallel time' DS universe. but I didn't think that was the point. the title "year one" would strongly imply to the reader it is an attempt to clarify and flesh out events from the series 1970s sequence, not set up an entirely new and different universe for one to absorb.

they are marketed as fiction...


but since they are "official"(deemed so by whomever does such things with authority these days, jim pierson?)like the audiodramas and the comics some fans will insists they are continuity and/or canon no matter how far off the beam they go storywise.


over on one of the FB boards someone was recently insisting that the RTTC presentation was "official continuity" because, of all things, it was written by david selby's son as if that makes a difference.

yes Nancy says in one of the DVD interviews that perhaps it was her imagination or Joan said it during rehearsal. it certainly never made it to tape. we'd know.


come to think of it did Liz(or anyone, actually?)greet anyone at the door with "welcome to Collinwood"? didn't they just usually say something bland like "hello" or "yes, can I help you?". seems like sort of a pretentious thing to say, calling out the house by name.