1840 Questions!

[Pansity]

I'm not a typical audience, but I'd really be interested in fanfic for cleverly tying and tidying up those loose ends.   We're not in the kind of rush the writers were, and we're not getting paid in the first place, and Dan can't fire us.

And that's exactly what readable fanfiction is SUPPOSED to do.  (NOTE: I said the readable kind, not the kind which you see prefaced with statements like "I just wrote this in five minutes flat and posted it so dont flame me if its bad".)    

Someone will get frustrated by a contradiction, or ticked off by a plot development, and will sit down and plot out how it could either be made consistant or could have happened another way.  This kind of fanfiction of course takes timeto write,  and research, but the end product is something people can read without feeling that they have wasted their time.

Don't even get me started about the sheer volume of unreadable fanfiction out there....

[Pansity]

Two words:  1840 Concordance!    They are a MUST for any fan fic writer. 

WHAT BUZZ SAID!!!

FYI they also make nifty souvenirs once you get them signed at a Fest by all the actors in that particular storyline.

[Joeytrom]

What I found odd...

[spoiler]When Professor Stokes arrived in 1840, Julia and Barnabas felt it necessary to explain the presence of Angelique, whom Stokes knew as Cassandra.  They told him that Cassandra was still obsessed over Barnabas and followed him down the staircase!   I am sure that they could have said nothing and pretend she was a lookalike of a present day character like the others were. [/spoiler]

[MagnusTrask]

To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger.   Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis.  They are only look-alikes to the viewer.  Angelique is always the same person though, and always looks like herself to other characters, except when their brains leak and they can't recognize her just because she has a bad black wig on.   They should know her.

[Lydia]

To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger.   Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis.  They are only look-alikes to the viewer.

And where were you when I said the exact same thing a month or two ago, and everybody jumped all over me?  Hiding behind a tree so you wouldn't have to defend my honor?

[Brandon Collins]

To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger.   Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis.  They are only look-alikes to the viewer.

I'm not sure I follow here. What I THINK you're saying is that Prof. Stokes should know who she is without any explanation at all? He should automatically know that she is Angelique and that she is a witch? This is kind of fuzzy to me, because by this logic, and please explain it to me if I'm wrong, Angelique would only be a LOOK-A-LIKE to Cassandra, but not actually Cassandra herself. Same way with Edward and Roger, Carl and Willie, etc etc. So while she looks like Cassandra, she actually isn't (although she really is because the viewer knows that Angelique stays the same everywhere). So why then, couldn't Barnabas and Julia just tell Stokes that she looks like Cassandra but that her name is Angelique, and let Stokes go from there?

Or is this what you're already saying?

::confused::    

[Midnite]

And where were you when I said the exact same thing a month or two ago, and everybody jumped all over me?  Hiding behind a tree so you wouldn't have to defend my honor?

Lydia, are you referring to these comments?--

In fact there was only a vague family resemblance between the Naomi and Elizabeth; they didn't look alike.  What we see on Dark Shadows is a theatrical representation of the history of the Collins family.  Budgetary considerations and an effort to make the story more accessible to viewers compelled Dan Curtis to use the same actress for Naomi and Elizabeth and the same actor for Roger and Joshua, and so on - but it wasn't really like that.

If so, I have to agree with the responses (all in the course of what looks to be polite debate) to your post stating that evidence to the contrary was presented on the show regarding 1795 and Naomi in particular.  I can't recall that you said the same thing about other characters or storylines (and if I'm not mistaken, you mentioned not having rewatched all of 1840 yet).  But I agree that, because the cast was basically a repertory company, some resemblances were presented as plot devices while others remained unintentional.  Neither Barnabas nor Angelique commented on Evan Hanley's resemblance to Nicholas, for example, so viewers were supposed to follow their lead by ignoring the seemingly obvious resemblance of the two characters.

[rainingwolf]

Two words:  1840 Concordance!    They are a MUST for any fan fic writer. 

Where does one get one of these? I've never seen them advertised on any of the sites I've found so far? It sounds like it would be cool to have!

[MagnusTrask]

I'm not sure I follow here. What I THINK you're saying is that Prof. Stokes should know who she is without any explanation at all? He should automatically know that she is Angelique and that she is a witch? This is kind of fuzzy to me, because by this logic, and please explain it to me if I'm wrong, Angelique would only be a LOOK-A-LIKE to Cassandra, but not actually Cassandra herself. Same way with Edward and Roger, Carl and Willie, etc etc. So while she looks like Cassandra, she actually isn't (although she really is because the viewer knows that Angelique stays the same everywhere). So why then, couldn't Barnabas and Julia just tell Stokes that she looks like Cassandra but that her name is Angelique, and let Stokes go from there?

Or is this what you're already saying?

Sorry Brandon, I'm almost completely lost concerning what you said... but I may as well say it here, my eye problem is making it so harmful for me to post that I'm not thinking straight.   As I focus on the monitor, it's like my eyes are in vices.    I need to absolutely never focus on anything for days or weeks to recover, but everything I do hurts and makes me worse, and it's hard to just sit still and do nothing for days.   So the moment I got up I went back on the computer.    It's horrible but I can't find a way out of the cycle.    Pain killers are even causing reactions.

We've seen different sorts of plays, TV shows, and movies, and we've seen actors in different roles.    Louis E played Roger and Edward, because they were using the same cast.    The characters probably resembled each other, the ones that were related, but they are only "look-alikes" to us the viewers because their parts had to be polayed by a limited number of actors.   You're being asked to suspend disbelief.

Stokes being a bright guy should have recognized Angelique unless she had put a spell over him, just because she's very distinctive-looking and Angelique tends to leave an impression, whatever name or wig she's using.     She's certainly not "protected" by the cloaking shield of unrecognizability that keeps Julia, say, from saeeing Carl as Willie, because it doesn't exist.    Angelique/Cassandra are exactly the same person, not different roles played by the same actress.    It's one role.    One person with one single face.    Julia recognizes her.    So should Elliot.   So should ECS in 1970.

I don't know 1968 so I may be missing things for that reason.

1795 was a sort of special case, because they set it up, apparently, on the idea that faces were mysteriously duplicated from 1967, maybe to ease the viewers' transition, because it would throw some viewers to see the same actors in different roles.   I imagine that they hoped to explain it all later as a supernaturally-caused phenomenon, and maybe they did, since anything made in 1968 I have no access to.   I think, though, that they just let that go.    We were just supposed to forget about the "sea of familiar faces" thing I guess.    All that is gone by 1897.

If i'm crazy enough to keep coming back online instead of stopping for a few weeks, maybe offer me some hot soup and cold compresses or something, which won't help, but are comforting--- I was at the ER once and morphine didn't help, so I don't know what to tell you.   I'm looking for some source of comfort I guess, even a symbolic one.     God my eyes hurt.    My life is all about my eyes hurting, I almost said, except for the other huge symptoms involved, so I guess I can't say that.

[BuzzH]

Where does one get one of these? I've never seen them advertised on any of the sites I've found so far? It sounds like it would be cool to have!

Write to Kathleen Resch: Kathleener@aol.com

[Pansity]

To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger.   Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis.  They are only look-alikes to the viewer.  Angelique is always the same person though, and always looks like herself to other characters, except when their brains leak and they can't recognize her just because she has a bad black wig on.   They should know her.

Excellent point Magnus!  If I remember correctly, only in 1795 is there any reference to the resemblance between characters played by the same actor.  The rest of the time, in my opinion, you are meant to ignore this, since the troup was essentially functioning like a repertoire company, where a few actors play many unrelated roles.

LOL on the leaking brain line.  Of course, I have a friend who refers to it as the influence of the infamous Collinsport Dumbwater.

[Pansity]

OOps, I just read the rest of the thread and noticed that the rep company issue had already been addressed.  That'll larn me to read the whole thread before posting.

Let's blame it on this rotten cold that's had me home from work for two day... yeah that's the ticket....Or as Han Solo put it "It's not my fault!" 

[Joeytrom]

What I meant to say in my post was that there wasnt any need to explain Angelique looking like Cassandra to Professor Stokes.  They should have just let him believe that Angelique resembled Cassandra.

The only other characters who got noticed as a lookalike was the Trasks of 1897 & 1840.

[michael c]

interesting points.

when i was watching the 1897 storyline it never occured to me that barnabas didn't identify the people he met there in relation to the people he knew in the present.for instance i don't recall him having any special reaction when he met judith whom of course not only resembled elizabeth but also his own mother naomi.

the exception would be both rachel and kitty whom he seemed to perceive as some manifestation of josette.

with the 1795 story perhaps because it was the first go-round with a time travel plot they felt they needed to spell that out to the audience with each episode(but boy did that voiceover get old!).i guess because vicki was supposed to represent "us" the viewer she needed to register shock with each new encounter.this must have gotten pretty tiresome for alexandra when the director shouted "o.k. alex when joan walks into the scene look really shocked!" and then some variation on that day after day for weeks.

during the 1970pt. storyline they did return to making some sort of explanatory announcement during the voiceover because all of the characters had the same names as their "real time" counterparts.

[Lydia]

Lydia, are you referring to these comments?

Yes, Midnite, you found it.  No need to comment further on it; others have already made here any worthwhile points that I might have done.  (Which leaves open the question of any unworthwhile points I might have been contemplating.)

But in reference to the following: 

(all in the course of what looks to be polite debate)

I wish to state for the record that I had no objection to the comments made at that time.  I just didn't agree with them.