Better Than I Thought

[Philippe Cordier]

It has been fun catching up on the last 2 - 3 weeks of episodes, which I'm seeing for the first time.  These eps have been much better than I expected!  IMO, things greatly improved from the earlier "Adam loves Carolyn hates Barnabas and Julia wants to kill kill kill believes everything Nicholas says" storyline.

Eve had potential, beginning with her name Leticia whatever and Danielle Roget being an anagram, as discovered by Professor Stokes.  That's the kind of DS I like.  An evil woman from 18th century France, and her lover Phillipe whatever.  Very interesting.

How Jeff Clark got involved with her is a mystery.  They don't seem terribly compatible, if you go by what they're like today.

Poor Vicki -- how I wish she'd just dump that damned annoying Jeff Clark.  Who the hell cares if he was Peter Jennings or whatever 200 years ago?  What a drip!  I think she should tell him to piss off and give that nice handsome young lawyer, Frank Garner, a call!

I must have missed something when it was indicated that Maggie was unemployed ... what happened to her job at the coffee shop at the Collinsport Inn?  Loved her cemetary flashbacks and was amazed at the continuity of these recreated scenes.

Still amazed that they seemed to get everything from 1795 right in those flashbacks -- i.e., the year , who had died, who was alive, etc.  They even remembered that Vicki had left the Collins family history book back in 1795!  Considering all the lapses we're treated to in the course of the series, I was pretty impressed with all this accuracy!  

I've even stopped fast-forwarding through the Nicholas Blair scenes now that he's gotten more realistically mean toward Angelique -- I think it was the slap that made me sit up and take note -- or pause the fast-forward button!

Incidentally, I noted that, with respect to Peter Bradford/Jeff Clark, this was another example of what I've previously posted about -- a "resurrection" (rather than a reincarnation).  That is, his physical body seems to have been resurrected, whereas with reincarnation, of course, it's just the spirit that is re-born -- in a different body.  I just think it's curious that DS has so many resurrections -- more than there are reincarnations, I think.  Never having been a sci-fi aficionado, I don't know if this is something unique to DS or not ...

Hmmm... I listened for that line about Roger's cell phone that Julia99 posted about, but all I heard was Vicki say "He must have turned his telephone off."  Julia99 is a very modern gal, so maybe she just substituted her normal environment/vocabulary onto the show?  Actually, I was a bit surprised that Roger would have been able to turn his telephone off in the 60s/70s ...

Will be anxious to learn more about Chris Jenning's sister "Molly" ... is this one of those continuity things I was praising above?  Still waiting to hear him described as Tom Jennings "twin" though ...

Couldn't help but snicker when Angelique's call to the Prince of Fire worked a little too well ...  Loved the bit about the charred stars present at her beginning ... oops, I thought she started out on Martinque ... or was it as the innocent Miranda in the 1600s who was only corrupted by the nefarious Judah Zachary ...

Next week:  My New Theory About DS!

[mfmdpt]

Still waiting to hear him described as Tom Jennings "twin" though ...

You'll be waiting forever, Vlad, because it's never once said or even hinted that Tom and Chris were twins.

The idea that Tom and Chris were twins is an often heatedly contested notion. For instance, some fans have insisted that in the scenes where Chris first introduced himself to Joe and Julia it was mentioned that Chris was Tom's twin. But it seems that our minds can often play tricks on us because as we saw on Thursday when episode #627 ran on Sci-Fi, at no point does anyone refer to Chris and Tom as being twins - only brothers. Actually, there's no point during the series in which anyone ever uses the words "twin" or "twins" to describe Tom and Chris. That idea probably stems from the fact that Don Briscoe played both roles.

[Cassandra]

How Jeff Clark got involved with her is a mystery.  They don't seem terribly compatible, if you go by what they're like today.

I feel the same way Vlad! These two are so mismatched it isn't funny!

Poor Vicki -- how I wish she'd just dump that damned annoying Jeff Clark.  Who the hell cares if he was Peter Jennings or whatever 200 years ago?  What a drip!  I think she should tell him to piss off and give that nice handsome young lawyer, Frank Garner, a call

LOL!! I don't know why she puts up with it!  Now when I think back to Frank Gardner, I can't get over the difference between these two guys. Compared to Jeff, Frank had all his marbles, a good steady job, and not once did you see him grabbing his hair or going off the deep end at a whims notice!

BTW, I enjoyed your post! :-)

[Craig_Slocum]

Poor Vicki -- how I wish she'd just dump that damned annoying Jeff Clark.

He just doesn't make any sense!

[jennifer]

You'll be waiting forever, Vlad, because it's never once said or even hinted that Tom and Chris were twins.

The idea that Tom and Chris were twins is an often heatedly contested notion. For instance, some fans have insisted that in the scenes where Chris first introduced himself to Joe and Julia it was mentioned that Chris was Tom's twin. But it seems that our minds can often play tricks on us because as we saw on Thursday when episode #627 ran on Sci-Fi, at no point does anyone refer to Chris and Tom as being twins - only brothers. Actually, there's no point during the series in which anyone ever uses the words "twin" or "twins" to describe Tom and Chris. That idea probably stems from the fact that Don Briscoe played both roles.

so true  Mike so true but it is possible i quess to look so much like a sibling that people scream when they see you though very rare i'm sure LOL wonder if this was done on any other show one person playing a dual
role as siblings without mention of the twin factor!
or is thsi only on DS!

jennifer

[Selby_D._Pearson]

You'll be waiting forever, Vlad, because it's never once said or even hinted that Tom and Chris were twins.

The idea that Tom and Chris were twins is an often heatedly contested notion. For instance, some fans have insisted that in the scenes where Chris first introduced himself to Joe and Julia it was mentioned that Chris was Tom's twin. But it seems that our minds can often play tricks on us because as we saw on Thursday when episode #627 ran on Sci-Fi, at no point does anyone refer to Chris and Tom as being twins - only brothers. Actually, there's no point during the series in which anyone ever uses the words "twin" or "twins" to describe Tom and Chris. That idea probably stems from the fact that Don Briscoe played both roles.

BEWARE! POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE!

I've never really given this much thought but I think the best "argument" for the boys being twins is the dream that Joe has where he mistakes vampire Tom for Chris. Certainly, siblings can look very much alike but surely their cousin Joe (having grown up with them) would be able to tell them apart. Unless they were identical twins!

Of course, the case can be made that this is, after all, a dream and a dream of a mentally ill man at than.

In addition, one might suggest that with the habit of using the same actor for different characters, perhaps the face that the character is actually "seeing" within the story line itself is supposed to be different than the one that the audience is actually seeing (that of the actor's). An example would be the introduction of Ned Stuart. The writers/makeup people did NOTHING to differentiate Roger Davis' fifth DS character from that of Jeff Clark. This came after the writers had had to explain umpteen million times that a new character was not a previous one but just resembled them (i.e. "No, I'm not Peter Bradford, I'm Jeff Clark." or "No, I'm certainly not the original Barnabas. I'm his descendant.") I think the writers were tired of having to do this gratuitously, and they felt the audience was equally tired and willing to forgive them if they simply introduced the character and no one mentioned that he looked exactly like someone else because in the frame of the story itself (and not what the audience is seeing over their TVs) the person does NOT look like the previous character. Whew! Hope you followed that.

One more "argument" for the two boys being twins. Twins run in families. The boys' grandmother, Lenore, was a twin.

SDP

[Blue_Whale_Barfly]

Hmmm... I listened for that line about Roger's cell phone that Julia99 posted about, but all I heard was Vicki say "He must have turned his telephone off."  Julia99 is a very modern gal, so maybe she just substituted her normal environment/vocabulary onto the show?  Actually, I was a bit surprised that Roger would have been able to turn his telephone off in the 60s/70s ...

I also heard that and did a double take.  I new the Collins were rich but they must of paid a heafty price for it.  it must have been procured on one of those trips to the future!

[VictoriaWintersRox]

I also heard that and did a double take.  I new the Collins were rich but they must of paid a heafty price for it.  it must have been procured on one of those trips to the future!

LOL. AM must've left the second e off, ala telphone, I remember the first time I watched it I thought she said cellphone but then I listed closely and heard a T. It was still spooky I wonder how Roger turned his 'telphone' off? He must've unplugged it or something I guess.

[Julia99]

I also heard that and did a double take.  I new the Collins were rich but they must of paid a heafty price for it.  it must have been procured on one of those trips to the future!

I'm glad to know i'm NOT The only one who heard that strange modern referral to Roger's phone. . .??  I also thought it strange that Julia insisted Willie go to "her" room and only use "her" phone to call an ambulance for Barney's trip to Wyndcliffe, does she have the bat phone?  . .why only her phone do you think?

[VAM]

I'm glad to know i'm NOT The only one who heard that strange modern referral to Roger's phone. . .??  I also thought it strange that Julia insisted Willie go to "her" room and only use "her" phone to call an ambulance for Barney's trip to Wyndcliffe, does she have the bat phone?  . .why only her phone do you think?

That is interesting because even if he used the phone in "her" room someone could listen in on the conversation. It makes you wonder if Julia installed a private line. Would make sense since she is now considered a permanent guest at Collinwood. Do you think she put out for the phone line or do you think the Collins family showed some generosity?

[MikeS]

BEWARE! POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE!

In addition, one might suggest that with the habit of using the same actor for different characters, perhaps the face that the character is actually "seeing" within the story line itself is supposed to be different than the one that the audience is actually seeing (that of the actor's). An example would be the introduction of Ned Stuart. The writers/makeup people did NOTHING to differentiate Roger Davis' fifth DS character from that of Jeff Clark. This came after the writers had had to explain umpteen million times that a new character was not a previous one but just resembled them (i.e. "No, I'm not Peter Bradford, I'm Jeff Clark." or "No, I'm certainly not the original Barnabas. I'm his descendant.") I think the writers were tired of having to do this gratuitously, and they felt the audience was equally tired and willing to forgive them if they simply introduced the character and no one mentioned that he looked exactly like someone else because in the frame of the story itself (and not what the audience is seeing over their TVs) the person does NOT look like the previous character. Whew! Hope you followed that.

Makes sense to me, SDP.  Although in the case of Ned Stuart, I seem to recall that in his initial appearance, Carolyn did comment on his resemblance to Jeff Clark

[Selby_D._Pearson]

Makes sense to me, SDP.  Although in the case of Ned Stuart, I seem to recall that in his initial appearance, Carolyn did comment on his resemblance to Jeff Clark  

I think you're right, MikeS. In this case, I think Carolyn is the only one who mentions the resemblance, and then promptly accepts and forgets about it.

SDP

[scout75]

...Carolyn is the only one who mentions the resemblance, and then promptly accepts and forgets about it.

Amnesia is a contagious disease at Collinwood--while acceptance and forgetfulness should be the motto below the family crest.

When Vicki returns to the drawing room seance from 1795 and Julia's true identity is finally revealed, Elizabeth readily accepts the good doc's ultra-lame excuses as to why she's actually hanging around there.

Not that Julia would ever be up to no good...

[Dr. Eric Lang]

Eve had potential, beginning with her name Leticia whatever and Danielle Roget being an anagram, as discovered by Professor Stokes.  That's the kind of DS I like.  An evil woman from 18th century France, and her lover Phillipe whatever.  Very interesting.

While I agree that "Eve" had potential, I disagree that the Danielle Roget addition to the story line was interesting. Instead it seemed rather tacked-on and confusing. They sort of pulled this character out of nowhere and it showed, IMHO.

Still amazed that they seemed to get everything from 1795 right in those flashbacks -- i.e., the year , who had died, who was alive, etc.  They even remembered that Vicki had left the Collins family history book back in 1795!  Considering all the lapses we're treated to in the course of the series, I was pretty impressed with all this accuracy!  

Not quite, Vlad - in fact, not even close. (Or were you being facetious?) Vicki "landed" in 1795 in October. We know this because Abigail Collins testified to the date during the witchcraft trial. We also knew that Sarah died in 1796, because we saw the date repeatedly on her tombstone in the mausoleum. Vicki was hanged around March of 1796; Peter, presumably, shortly thereafter. For some odd reason, however, his tombstone reads "died 1795," instead of the correct year, 1796.

The 1795/1796 part of this storyline is a consistent point of discrepency. By the end of the 1897 story line, the date of this story has again been changed  . . . to 1797. I assume it was to make an exact 100-year connection between 1897 and 1797 but it annoyed me to no end.

[Julia99]

and Julia's true identity is finally revealed, Elizabeth readily accepts the good doc's ultra-lame excuses as to why she's actually hanging around there.

Not that Julia would ever be up to no good...

Of course Liz accepted Julia's excuse. . she wasn't gonna question Julia about her nearness to a "breakdown". . .that was so iladvised in those days. . one didn't really talk about mental exhaustion or anything. .