true...

other than an old mansion called "collinwood" NODS and DeppShadows have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

the timing of her pregnancy is what's critical in this discusion...

let's say she had NOT become pregnant in the summer/fall of 1968, but at an earlier or later time or not at all, then curtis would have had to find something for her to do during the 1897 arc.


THAT'S the question we'll never have answered.

that said rachel drummond was enough of a vicki-type character, a wide-eyed and clueless ingenue governess, that perhaps she could have been some earlier incarnation of vicki and that would have satisfied curtis' beliefs about the actress/character. but again we'll never know.

while i can understand motlke's desire to play a more complex character i've always found vicki's placidity a nice, and necessary, counterpoint to the over the top, scenery chewing characterizations that happen elsewhere on the series. she had a soothing onscreen presence and moltke's quiet, even rather flat, acting style and slightly aristocratic bearing gave a gravity and seriousness to some outrageous situations.

rather than complain about it all the time alexandra could have made the most of a prized position in the story. still, she was pregnant, and would have had to leave sooner or later anyways.


that said i've always thought, just for fun, a vain, glamorous and pleasure seeking victoria would have been fun for a few months in 1970 parallel time.

alexandra may certainly have wanted to exit the series but in terms of her "REFUSING" to put on makeup parker was just spinning a yarn...


the video evidence just isn't there. as a great moltke aficionado there was never an episode where she looked ungroomed. unkempt. or unmadeup.


for obvious reasons the character never wore heavy makeup. but alexandra always looked polished right up until her final episodes. in fact alot of the time she wore rather elaborate eye makeup albeit with a nude lip.

and her hair was always immaculate.

as a group we've spent the better part of forty years being the underdogs of fandom...

perhaps it's just our destiny. now "bomb" can join "campy" and "bloopers" as part of our legacy.


it's unfortunate, because to me it seems like the film did relatively well and the description is hardly accurate, but i'm not going to get upset or defensive about it.

part of the problem with 1968 is that it comes directly on the heels of what many consider to be the series' highpoint. 1795.

there the mythology and magic came to it's fullest fruition. then, out of the blue, it's a show about a bunch of really dumb and boring monsters.

and when i speak of "1968" i don't mean the tail end of 1795. and i really don't mean the chris jennings/quentin hauntings either. i believe that plot starts in december of 1968(during the unfortunate miss durkin's residency)but i always think of it as a 1969 storyline.

cassandra's a hoot. and julia and nicholas blair have a few memorable showdowns. but for most of the year it was just dumb.

another thing that i think alienates from this time period is that it is so largely populated by the series' latercomers...

christopher pennock, james storm, virginia vestoff, donna wandrey, kate jackson, etc., etc,...


there's nothing wrong with these actors i just never bonded with them the way i did the early cast of characters. with kathryn leigh scott and clarice blackburn departed and joan and louis relegated to the sidelines i'm disengaged out of the gate. something about it feels very alien to me all these newbies traipsing about collinwood.

and this is the third time period in a row where they try and give the barnabas and roxanne the big buildup which for me was a flatliner from day one. roxanne is in every storyline a very weakly developed character and frid and wandrey have absolutely no chemistry.