1795:a query

[Joeytrom]

Part of the problem w/1795 is the divergence the writers took from established history by necessity. Originally, the timeline for the deaths of Josette, Naomi and Barnabas were to have taken place in the 1820's. We can only speculate why these events were pushed back to 1795 (the availability of period costumes, for instance). Nor was Jeremiah, the central ancestral figure, supposed to have died during these events - he and Josette were supposed to be Elizabeth's and Roger's great grandparents. Collinwood wasn't supposed to have been built until 1830. Jeremiah was supposed to be in the same age group as his brother Joshua, not the same age as Barnabas.

The decision to kill off Jeremiah was probably dictated by Anthony George's desire to leave the show and had perhaps the biggest impact on changing the established history. I would have preferred to see the part recast, thus salvaging an important historical plot point.

While 1795 is my favorite story line I'm not blind to its faults. The pacing is decidely off, again perhaps necessitated by Anthony George's unexpected departure. I feel it should have culminated in Josette's death (and may have been originally intended so); instead she's killed off about half way through and the whole Nathan/Millicent storyline seems like a lot of tack-on at the end rather than being interwoven with the rest of the period.

I think what makes it my favorite, aside from the time travel element, is that it represents a time when the actors were given challenging roles to play and acted the heck out of it, and it was during a time when the writing was still sharp and the dialogue still interesting and creative.

I too wondered why they simply didn't recast Jeremiah with another actor as they already did that with three characters one month before.  It would have been better off that way.  Looks to me like a hasty decision by DC that would become the norm in later years (ex. Carl Collins should have just been written out of 1897 by leaving town as Andre was in 1795)

1795 though, is a great, tightly plotted story that they had a beginning, middle, and end for and it was written better then 1897 was.  1840 is also close to 1795 but not as much in terms of plotting.

[michael c]

I just finished watching ep 345, where Barnabas tells Julia the story of Josette at the top of Widow's Hill.  It's markedly different than what plays out in the 1795 Flashback.  Barnabas tells Julia that his first meeting with Josette was when she came to live at Collinwood as the young new wife of his middle aged Uncle Jeremiah, and how with the passage of years grew discontented with being married to a much older man.  Obviously, this played out very differently in the Flashback.  How many differing versions of Josette's story are there?

this ep. was filmed only a few weeks before the flashback began,so it's weird that they changed the story so much.there was also supposed to have been some signifigance to the fact that jeremiah resembled burke devlin that ultimately never played out.another totally different version of josette's story is the one barnabas tells carolyn and vicki on that stormy night shortly after his arrival at collinwood.

[Cassandra]

I agree about the later part of 1795   it drug out way too long, as opposed to the first part, where things moved quickly.

  I loved the whole 1795 time travel storyline and it's my favorite out of all of them.  However, I do agree with you about the first part of the storyline and how quick things seemed to move right from the start.   I myself would liked to have seen a little more of Josette & Barnabas' relationship before the whole witchcraft thing got under.  Instead, the first day Josette arrives we see a short scene of the two of them kissing and professing their love for one another, and then he nearly chokes to death!  The relationship is doomed after that.  That early part of their relationship (before the choking) was about the only real normal part we get to witness.


Dr Eric Lang Wrote:

While 1795 is my favorite story line I'm not blind to its faults. The pacing is decidely off, again perhaps necessitated by Anthony George's unexpected departure. I feel it should have culminated in Josette's death (and may have been originally intended so); instead she's killed off about half way through and the whole Nathan/Millicent storyline seems like a lot of tack-on at the end rather than being interwoven with the rest of the period.

 IMO I think it would have more interesting if they had dragged out the Barnabas/Josette/Angelque relationship (instead of having the latter two die)  than having to sit through that whole Vicky/Peter trial & Millicent/Nathan marriage.

Cassandra

[Miss_Winthrop]

Someone in an earlier post talks about Joel Crothers being a lightweight as a heavy (Forbes).  I have to disagree and here's why.  He starts out as a trusted friend of the family. Here's this trusted friend who puts the moves on Vicki big time right away and in the home of his employer! The first hint that he's not what he seems.  He gradually descends into a hell of his own making with the help of Rev. Trask.  Loved it when he found out what Millicent did with her money! I thought he did great as this bumbling bad guy who rarely got it right.  He gets his props when he sets up the bow & arrow thing in the library as a last resort.

[danfling]

I LOVED Jane Draper as Suki!

She was blonde, and the other thing that I remember about her the most was her June Allyson-like voice!

I would have loved to have seen her in some other role on Dark Shadows or on any soap opera.      I have never seen her in anything else.

(I wouldn't have wanted her to play Buffy Harrington, though - because I liked Elizabeth Eis too!)

Does anyone know anything about what happened to Ms. Draper?      Was she ever invited to any of the cast reunions?

[IluvBarnabas]

While I think Ben Stokes is a stand-out character, and Thayer David a brilliant actor,  the absence of John Karlen throughout the entire 1795 storyline makes it less than thrilling for me....

I agree John's absence was sorely missed (he would have been ideal for the role of Nathan's partner-in-crime Noah Gifford though Craig Slocum did a fine job) but it doesn't spoil my enjoyment of 1795. I do agree that the witchcraft trial could at times be a trial to watch but all in all I found 1795 to be a great storyline.

Part of the reason I really like the time-travelling stories it gave the actors other roles to play and show their versitility.
I mean Judith, Flora and Naomi were totally different from Elizabeth, as was Millicent, Charity, PT Carolyn,  Melanie and Leticia from  RT Carolyn.....Carl, Desmond, Kendrick and PT Will Loomis from the RT Willie, etc.

I like the present time stories but I just adore all the back-in-time stories so much.