If 1795 was done the way they originally intended.

[Joeytrom]

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.  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.  I doubt they would have had a with trial though.  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?

[Maria_Merriweather]

I don't think that the various 1795 characters could have been as fully fleshed out  over the years as they were in a flashback. The story would have had less discrepancies though.

[stefan]

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.  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.  I doubt they would have had a with trial though.  It would have also been able to keep with the 1830's as being Barnabas' first time as a vampire as opposed to 1795.

hmmm...I'm having a hard time envisioning that scenario. I'm agreeing with the post above me that I prefer the "travel back in time" concept because I enjoyed the day-to-day lives of those characters and being swept away as events came crashing in. I wish they had spent MORE time on events before Angelique started in, I think it was the very next day when Angelique and Josette arrived she started to create spells and cause trouble. I wish they had elaborated more on the Josette and Barnabas relationship. But some brilliant touches were Joshua and Naomi, a totally realized couple, very nicely done.

If the story were told in ghostly spurts I don't think I would have been as involved.

[DarkShadowyFigure]

If done as originally intended, I think the 1795 SL would have been more difficult to keep up with. Especially so if what glimpses of 1795 they showed were out of sequence and viewers were waiting for gaps in the storyline to be filled in while keeping up with current SL's. Myself, another month of the 1795 SL would have been nice, especially early on in the SL.

[LorraineAAB]

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.

[stefan]

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.

hmm...very informative post. I didn't "get" most of that in my own viewing though I can imagine some of Barnabas' story WOULD be softened because of JF's popularity. I do remember a hint of this kind of thing when Barnabas was lamenting over Jeramiah's grave, saying how they always laughed at the follies of others and look at them now...or something to that effect.

It's also interesting that the writers appeared to enjoy the concept of the much younger sister a.k.a Sarah and the much younger sister of the warewolf character that came shortly afterwards, played by Don Briscoe. I'd say it was very Gothic and much keeping with Gothic wild and windy scenarios DS is famous for and was somewhat successful in creating.

[onyx_treasure]

    I read a fanfic years ago about Sarah being Barnabas' daughter.  It would have made an interesting side story.  Joshua seemed very distant from her.  In the opening scene of 1795, Barnabas had just put Sarah to bed for her nap rather than have a servant take care of her.  I can't see anyone else in the household except Naomi showing her that much attention.  Lots of unexplored soap opera potential.

[stefan]

I read a fanfic years ago about Sarah being Barnabas' daughter.  It would have made an interesting side story.  Joshua seemed very distant from her.  In the opening scene of 1795, Barnabas had just put Sarah to bed for her nap rather than have a servant take care of her.  I can't see anyone else in the household except Naomi showing her that much attention.  Lots of unexplored soap opera potential.

Whoa! Very cool! I agree that they could have gone all over the place with the 1795 Collins pre-vampire stuff. All those interesting characters just ready to go. I understand when someone here posted that the 2nd DS was somewhat parasitic in ripping off the old DS by repeating it verbatim BUT...I almost wish this new DS would take the old show and really, really explore all those unanswered questions, dangling threads and untold stories that the original didn't seem to have time for  --  AND get Johnny Depp to play Barnie. (my screen name is stefan but I am female). I might almost watch it then.

[ProfStokes]

One factor that might have been impacted by a 1795 told through second-hand sources was the use of actors in multiple roles.  1795 was such a turning point in the show, not only because of the radical time-travel plot, but because it gave the cast an opportunity to extend themselves and flaunt their talents.  I never would have imagined that Joel Crothers had such a vibrant acting range until I saw Nathan Forbes.  If Victoria had never visited the past though, the idea to have the actors play their characters' ancestors might never have occurred, and the show would have lacked one of its most distinguishing trademarks.

ProfStokes

[Gothick]

I've wondered for years whether they moved the origins of Barnabas story to the 1790s because of the availability of costumes from the 18th century.   I know that sounds silly, but I keep wondering about that.

I believe there's a scene that aired less than a month before the start of 1795 where Barnabas is talking to Julia about Josette, and he goes into the whole thing with Jeremiah again, and she gets him to admit that Josette never loved him.  At this point, they did have the same writers who wound up writing 1795.  So my conclusion is that, as usual, it was DC and nobody else who was responsible for the abrupt switch in plan.

Since 1795 keeps getting touted as the best of all DS' storylines (not my personal opinion), I guess most fans would approve of DC's decisions, despite the substantial errors in continuity!

G.

[Joeytrom]

Maybe thats why they changed into a time travel story, so that they didn't have to hire basically an ENTIRE second cast to play the 1795 roles.  Can't see DC spending all that money.
_______________________________________________________

One factor that might have been impacted by a 1795 told through second-hand sources was the use of actors in multiple roles.  1795 was such a turning point in the show, not only because of the radical time-travel plot, but because it gave the cast an opportunity to extend themselves and flaunt their talents.  I never would have imagined that Joel Crothers had such a vibrant acting range until I saw Nathan Forbes.  If Victoria had never visited the past though, the idea to have the actors play their characters' ancestors might never have occurred, and the show would have lacked one of its most distinguishing trademarks.