I wonder if the different reactions to the bites by different characters were part of the script or just the actors interpretations.
Possibly a bit of both going on here.
Although I doubt the writers ever took it into consideration during this part of the series,
DARK SHADOWS established by precedent an organic catalyst, if not cause, for vampirism, i.e., the cell that Julia found in Barnabas's (and his victims') blood. Therefore, just as bacteria and viruses have different strains -- and individuals have various reactions to them based on their physical constitutions -- it is logical to assume that victims of a vampire might exhibit different characteristics as well.
Not only that, one could also make the case that the vampires themselves have different powers and vulnerabilities for the same reason. I addressed this issue directly in
DREAMS OF THE DARK by having our new vampire, Thomas Rathburn, be subject to a whole different set of criteria than Barnabas Collins. Given his origin, Rathburn could walk in daylight and withstand the crucifix unless the bearer had sincere faith in it. (Rathburn's characteristics were drawn more directly from
DRACULA and other vampire myths than from
DS itself; to account for this, I included the explanation to the effect that the characteristics of vampires were as varied as their number, i.e., no two were necessarily 100% alike.) Furthermore, Rathburn's victim (in this case, Victoria Winters), once beyond the initial narcotic effect of the vampire bite, became expressly uninhibited and aggressive in her behavior -- mainly because we absolutely refused to have Victoria wandering through the book with one hand over her neck whining "I don't understand."
Well, she didn't understand, but at least she didn't whine.
Anyway, one could infer that, within the
DS universe itself, the different characteristics of vampires (even down to there being the occasional reflection in the mirror) are the result of different strains of the previously established "vampire cell." Anyway, I prefer exploring the possibilities this postulate opens over merely attributing a lapse of consistency to "just another blooper" (although they almost certainly were!).
