Ron Sproat once stated that Barnabas' origin was to be originally set up as told through ghosts and books instead of a time travel story.
This would have let the writers keep what had been said about Barnabas' origins without anything being compressed into 5 months and going against continuity.
As it turned out, most of the story as eventually shown contradicted a LOT of what had gone before (even as recounted by Barnabas himself), and which _had_ to still be fresh in the memories of the fans who had followed the program from Day One. But it was different writers by then, and as was to become commonplace, apparently didn't consult any surviving previous material, or thought it forgotten (!!!)
The story would have taken place over years and the characters of the 18th century Collins' would be seen at various stages of their life.
It would have been instructional to see SOME scenes depicting Barnabas's childhood and the development of his relationship with his parents, BUT as part of a flashback format. Subtle flashbacks via text and talk work in books and even some movies, but on TV, they could only get away with so much subtlely--- sooner or later, they even had to show exactly WHAT Barnabas was, what he did, and, as time went on, exactly how he did it.
Though in retrospect, making Sarah his MUCH younger sister, who was more attached to him than to their father, and making that character share in the tragedies attendant upon Barnabas's becoming a vampire, WAS an inspired change which added to the pathos factor.
I doubt they would have had a witch trial though.
Actually, there WERE still scattered legal actions against accused witches by then, but those came under the less-exciting heading of disturbing the peace and were punished with fines and jail time. A witch- hunter like Trask would have been an anachronism in America by then. That's probably why they tacked the kidnap plot and shooting of the kidnapper on at the end, to have a more solid excuse to hang Vicki. (How they came up with the creative excuses for ANOTHER witch trial in _1840_ STILL amazes me.)
It seems to me that it would have been far more tragic and ironic, to have had the judges exonerate Vicki / Phyllis even with questions about the Trask affidavit, then,
the superstitious villagers, still whipped up in a frenzy (which scapegoating could still happen at ANY time, even these days) abducting her and hanging her as before, without any real discontinuity.
It would have also been able to keep with the 1830's as being Barnabas' first time as a vampire as opposed to 1795.
What do you think the story would have been like if they did go this route?
The story would have been, IMO, a lot DARKER--- especially if they had kept the B&W photography. They could have worked in that dangling thread about Caleb Collins's house and the mysterious "bride from Barbados" (an Angelique type ? ), working her into a romantic intrigue involving Barnabas, Josette, Jeremiah, and Caleb, and the true origin of Barnabas's curse. Josette would have remained coming directly from France, and, perhaps, the direct ancestress of the Collins clan (and, thus, Vicki) as she was in the beginning of the series--- maybe even implying that Barnabas was the real father of at least one of her children.
Included would be the less-pleasant aspects of Josette's and Barnabas's relationship--- when Barn admitted to Julia that Jo came to him less than willingly, and the basis for the brainwashing methods he used on Maggie, and the brutality he showed to Willie. In the beginning, it appeared that, while much could be explained by his vampire / feral status, SOME of this unevolved behavior was carried over from his original life of arrogant privilege (which is timeless amongst aristocrats, or those who PERCEIVE themselves as such.) The 1795 flashback turned ALL that on its head, in order to maintain the sympathy for the now-popular character.
Even the implication of "incestors"--- Barnabas pursuing putative female descendants--- might have been made acceptable if handled with a little delicacy. The censors apparently didn't quail at the later discontinuity of Roger's having inadvertantly married (and fathering a child with) his GRANDMOTHER !!! (But hey, it was 1969 by then.... Groovy, man!
)
L.