i'm doing 1840...finally

I watched those shows on the original b'cast in 1970 and the vampire's identity really came out of left field for me.  I actually remember that scene where the unknown vampire was influencing Julia into a doze and we saw the creature as a shadowy figure and I swear it looked as if "he" was wearing a sombrero and a cape and I remember thinking, "Oh My God, the Cisco Kid has become One of the Living Dead!!!"  (some may not have a clue regarding the humor in this)

1970 was kind of the banner year for Lesbian Vampires, wasn't it?  The Vampire Lovers and Daughters of Darkness (starring out own Johnny Karlen) were both filmed in that year, and soon after followed a bevy of films such as Les Vampyres and Vampyros Lesbos and then the lesbian sequence in Count Yorga Vampire... it was quite a fad for a time.

I really wish they had done at least one scene between Maggie and her Vampire Mistress.  I noticed that when Julia fell victim to the same Vampire in 1840, they were very careful never to show the two together and Julia being dominated, both psychically and perhaps sensually, by another woman.

They could show John Yeagar licking Maggie Collins' necklace but they couldn't show THAT.

G.

Ideal Barnabas for me is the anti-hero, intimidating, frightening protagonist of early 1897.    Plain old "evil" Barnabas gets boring fast to me, but straight-ahead good guy BC even more so.    1840 Barnabas who is of 1840, at the start, is great.    He hadn't stewed in his juices long enough to get really twisted yet... but long enough to make him interesting.    I love 1795 human Barnabas.  It's just the present day good Barnabas that really bothers me, though he gets boring in 1840 too.

Few writers write protagonists who are interesting and have personalities.   It can't be an impossible task.

all the characters were good until we got Frid into the mix with them.    he dominiated every scene he was in and quite frankly (i'm ducking now) i think he kind of ruined the show.  He always whined like a little bytch who never gets their way.  he ruined alot of the dramatic scens he was in because of his stumbling on lines and he also messed other people up as well. 

and to boot, on the interviews he seemed to denounce the Barnabas character.  

1970 was kind of the banner year for Lesbian Vampires, wasn't it?  The Vampire Lovers and Daughters of Darkness (starring out own Johnny Karlen) were both filmed in that year, and soon after followed a bevy of films such as Les Vampyres and Vampyros Lesbos and then the lesbian sequence in Count Yorga Vampire... it was quite a fad for a time.

I really wish they had done at least one scene between Maggie and her Vampire Mistress.  I noticed that when Julia fell victim to the same Vampire in 1840, they were very careful never to show the two together and Julia being dominated, both psychically and perhaps sensually, by another woman.

They could show John Yeagar licking Maggie Collins' necklace but they couldn't show THAT.

they never showed barnabas going to willie's neck.   and williew wound was on his arm. 

also, i always picked up lesbian vibes from hoffman in parallel time with her alexis/angelique.  also with Carolyn and Julia in the Carolyn as barnabas's servent.   Carolyn seemed to "domininate" julia.

quite franly hoffman always gave off lesbian vibes to me.

i only watched a few late 1970 episodes to get caught up before i started 1840.

can someone refresh my memory on this point?is the roxanne/vampire plot tied into the gerard plot or do they just run concurrently with no connection?

does this plot mean anything in 1840 or does it just get dropped once the storyline switches time periods?

Congratulations, mscbryk on your first foray into 1840!

can someone refresh my memory on this point?is the roxanne/vampire plot tied into the gerard plot or do they just run concurrently with no connection?

does this plot mean anything in 1840 or does it just get dropped once the storyline switches time periods?

The Roxanne and Gerard stories were not connected in 1970, but the Roxanne issue is addressed again in 1840 in a way that will leave you scratching your head and asking, "How can this be?"

ProfStokes

I did think that a connection between Roxanne's story and the main Gerard story was *implied* in the Summer of 1970 storyline--if you watch carefully, there are snippets of dialogue here and there that imply this.  But in typical fashion the Roxanne storyline was just turned into a dead end like so much else from this period.

G.

they never showed barnabas going to willie's neck.   and williew wound was on his arm.

Hee hee (and OT), I remember though once Sandor discovered Barnabas' coffin in 1897, Barnabas did bite him on the neck, though we only see the wound and not the act.  Maybe Barn just has a thing for bears? 

LOL Gothick! Yes, I too can hear that coming from the big DC. As for things being set up different in 1970 Summer versus what actually happened..... a common happenstance when dealing with time travel I'm afraid! Like what was the deal with Carrie and Tad being dead, or Gerard's boat (which I don't recall being mentioned YET in 1840), etc.

And Thank you Magnus! I did mean Desmond! *Forehead slap* I knew that sounded wrong.

thus far i'm really enjoying these episodes.

a few observations...

with kathryn leigh scott gone this is the first time travel storyline that does not have some sort of "josette-centric" theme going on.it has a whole different "feel".

obviously jonathan and grayson are front-and-center but with joan,louis and nancy in supporting roles this leaves the later actors...james storm,virginia vestoff,christopher pennock,donna wandrey,kate jackson...to head things up.this really gives the storyline a "new" or "different" feel as the previous two time travel storylines(1795,1897)featured a signifigant number of the original actors.this feels about as far away from 1966 as possible and yet is still the same show.

i understand that kls was originaly slated to portray samantha collins.i just can't picture it.she has an inherent sweetness that i think would be at odds with the character.i wouldn't have minded seeing either terry crawford or elizabeth eis in the role.

i have to say i was disappointed with what happens with barnabas in these episodes.i was excited when ornery 1795 barnbas was released from his coffin and was momentarily at odds with julia again.that would have been a much more interesting direction to explore for awhile.instead after just a few days boring,1970,casper milquetoast barnabas "i-chings" his way into the picture with a dull thud.the "barnabas-and-julia-variety-hour" wears on my nervers in a real hurry.

i really like the costumes in this era...what keeps driving me nuts is how they keep changing the chandelier in the drawing room from the 1897 one to some other one specific to the 1840 storyline.

i understand that kls was originaly slated to portray samantha collins.i just can't picture it.

I can't picture anyone other than Virginia Vestoff in the role because she just so owns it and plays it to perfection.

i really like the costumes in this era

Yes - Mary McKinley-Hass did a really great job. 

what keeps driving me nuts is how they keep changing the chandelier in the drawing room from the 1897 one to some other one specific to the 1840 storyline.

Really? How wild. I've never noticed. I'll have to look for that the next time I watch.  

mysterious,

the 1840 chandelier has orange globes on it.i'm not sure what type of fuel was used in 1840.was it gaslight?

similarly it drove me nuts how the 1897 chandelier used to come and go in the "present" after 1897.

similarly it drove me nuts how the 1897 chandelier used to come and go in the "present" after 1897.

That I've noticed.    But I've just chalked it up to the fact that, because space was at a premium in the studio, and because the drawing room set was a permanent set, they'd sometimes erect a different set inside the drawing room if it wasn't being used in an episode. Naturally, the different set would require the drawing room chandelier to be taken down - and I suppose some days they simply forgot to put it back up when the drawing room was needed.

I had no idea KLS was originally slated for the role of Samantha! Like MB I can't picture anyone but Ms. Vestoff in the role, she is superb! In a way I'm glad they didn't cast KLS because it would have been a bit to much like 70PT for me.

a couple more thoughts...

although the dates of the events originally told during the 1795 storyline alternate here between being 1796 and 1797 it is still only 1840.so how is it that daniel,only a child in 179-whatever,is "aged" and "senile" when the numbers add up to him only being in his early fifties?

again i think the writers really copped out on bringing "good" barnabas into the storyline too soon rather than exploring what would have happened had the "bad"(or at least very conflicted)barnabas released from his coffin stuck around for awhile and caused some trouble.was this due to fear that the show's pre-teen audience might get "mad" like they did during the leviathan storyline when barnabas turned nasty again?that's pretty weak storytelling as far as i'm concerned.

here goes something of a tangent...by making previously "bad" characters like barnabas and quentin "nice"(or at least nuetral)it actually does them a tremendous disservice and nullifies alot about what made them compelling in the first place.

in 1897 they created in quentin one of the most fascinating and complex characters in the show's history.yet when he's brought into the present by trying to make him "nice" they negate all that.if it weren't for david selby's striking good looks and the character's strong name recognition he was written almost as a nonentity.at least as a vampire barnabas still had an element of dangerousness to him.speaking of quentin's name i think it is more cynical "branding" than valid storytelling that made the writers name selby's character that in every single time period.again did they worry that those "kids-that-you-know-what" would not be able to identify him as a character with another name?

that bitch-session aside i do really like these episodes and am looking forward to angelique's return.

They couldn't interfere with the "Quentin" phenomenon.   Same with Barnabas.    Imagine one of the most popular characters on TV suddenly renamed "Fred" or something....

As for aged Daniel, people didn't live as long back then.   I feel pretty aged as I approach that decade in life, but I have extenuating circumstances.    I like to think I'd be biking across the country if I got well.   For the moment I'll just have to content myself with having walked a few blocks to the store and back.    Not bad.

It's not that protagonists are boring, but that they wrote them to be boring.    Villains are as boring as Dudley Do-Right heroes, unless you make them otherwise, that is.    Quentin was still borderline-violent and touchy no matter when he was... but they didn't make him interesting.   1968 Barnabas could have had a fascinating transformation after the hospital scene where he steps into sunlight, but instead, we got a cynical Frankenstein ripoff, and high-school-creative-writing-class-type forced "conflict", in the form of Adam repeating the same threat, and he and Barnabas bickering and bickering and bickering.

A healing Barnabas could have been the finest hour of the program.