The return to 1796

[Joeytrom]

What are your opinions on this mini flashback where Barnabas goes back to 1796 to save Vicky from the gallows?

I thought they could have done without this and either write out Vicky and Jeff leaving town or just have her fade off with Peters ghost.

1795 was such a great storyline, they never should have changed the ending (I will not even get into the second return with Barnabas and Kitty).

I have read posts stating that the fans demanded that an explanation be given as to what happened to Vicky and they interrupted the Quentin story to put together the Vicky storyline.  I just don't find that logical given the fact that by the time that Betsy Durkin's VW went off with Peter's ghost aired on TV, that viwers had enough time to write in or call in to get an explanation for Vicky to air so fast.

By the time of the filming of this episode, the writers must have had the 1796 return already written as there are about 10 shows apart from Vickys vanishing to Barnabas telling Julia the story of the his last night in 1796.

[Josette]

I agree that it was an unnecessary diversion and it would have been better to leave the original story unchanged.  We could have just assumed that Vicki and Peter lived "happily ever after" (at least if they hadn't changed things yet again in the Leviathan story!! - that was atrocious!!).

However, we do get the satisfaction of how they tricked and destroyed Angelique.  I really loved that.

[Philippe Cordier]

Joeytrom,

Could you remind those of us who may not remember what the 1796 flashback was?  Was this right before the Leviathan storyline?  Or was that the one when Kitty vanishes into Josette's portrait?  Is it the one where we're told Vicki was killed by Jeb?

 

[Gerard]

It happened during the haunting of Collinwood by Quentin's ghost, Vlad, kinda towards the beginning of that storyline.  From what I remember, Barnabas finds Vicki's tombstone, showing she was executed in 1796, so he had to go back to save her once again.  It only lasted for a few days.  Another actress, not Betsy Dirkin, played Vicki.

Gerard

[Joeytrom]

This 1796 flashback happened after the end of the Adam story and when Quentins ghost had just been introduced (January 1969).

Carolyn Groves played Victoria Winters during this time.

[Josette]

I'll go into a bit more detail here, so for those who haven't seen it, I'll do it as a spoiler.

[spoiler]This time Barnabas was trying to save Vicki.  Angelique promised to help by putting a spell on her just before the hanging so she would appear to be dead and then remove it afterwards.

Of course, she refused to remove it afterwards; Peter was furious thinking she was dead; and Barnabas was furious and arranged with Ben to be waiting with a torch and get Angelique.  That's the part I loved!

Once Angelique was gone, Vicki came out of the spell and she and Peter supposedly went off to a wonderful life together.

This is before they go to 1897.  The other one comes at the end of 1897 with Lady Kitty.  This time Barnabas presumably has finally worked it out to get Josette until he's stopped by the Leviathans.[/spoiler]

[Philippe Cordier]

I thought I knew the show pretty well having seen two complete runs, but I don't remember anything about this return to 1796 other than recalling that it happened.

Guess I need to see the series a third time. 

Having DS a part of one's life on an almost daily basis for several years, and for it now to have vanished into thin air leaves me with a sense of loss.  I hope another network picks up the show ... I'm ready to watch it again from Episode 1 ...

[Stuart]

I guess I'm in the minority, as I love that story.  I know the continuity aspect makes no sense whatsoever (but neither do any of the other flashbacks, so who cares), but it's so well done and enjoyable.

Carolyn Groves is just amazing as Vicki - she just hits the ground running, looks perfect and frankly is a better actress than Alexandra Moltke.  This Vicki's vulnerable and scared, but she's no fool either.

Also, it really does improve on the original run of 1795 episodes too - Barnabas' confrontation of Nathan in the Eagle is vastly superior, with far better performances - Frid in particular.  Added to that the fun of revisiting the 1795 settings, and the shock - well, it was to me - return of Angelique (never a bad thing), and it's a great little diversion that doesn't outstay its welcome.

After the relative disaster of Betsy Durkin's miscasting (not really a bad actress, just visually wrong and too go-get-em), I think it was really welcome to take time out and give Vicki a proper send-off.  There's even a little acknowledgement of the parentage thing as she leaves, when she tells Barnabas that she doesn't need to search any more, because Collinwood is her home...  awwwww.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I guess I'm in the minority, as I love that story.  I know the continuity aspect makes no sense whatsoever (but neither do any of the other flashbacks, so who cares), but it's so well done and enjoyable.

You might be in the minority, Stuart, but you're not alone because I agree with everything you've said. And as for being in the minority, it isn't such a bad thing, really.    I find myself there quite often - particularly when it comes to praising so many different aspects of the '91 DS (which is another thing we (and a select group of other "heretics" on the forum  ) share in common). 

[IluvBarnabas]

I guess I'm in the minority, as I love that story.  I know the continuity aspect makes no sense whatsoever (but neither do any of the other flashbacks, so who cares), but it's so well done and enjoyable.

Also, it really does improve on the original run of 1795 episodes too - Barnabas' confrontation of Nathan in the Eagle is vastly superior, with far better performances - Frid in particular.  Added to that the fun of revisiting the 1795 settings, and the shock - well, it was to me - return of Angelique (never a bad thing), and it's a great little diversion that doesn't outstay its welcome.

Add me to the minority that enjoyed Barnabas' brief return to 1796. His confrontations with Angelique was such a joy to watch and his scenes with Vicki were touching, particularly their farewell scene (though I do believe they would have been more emotional had Alexandra had been doing them.....Carolyn was an improvement over Betsy Durkin but Alexandra will always be Vicki to me). And I also loved his scenes with Ben too.

1795 was always one of my favorite stories and I didn't mind one bit that the writers decided to revisit it.

[Willie]

I really liked that little bit.  Of course, 1795 is my favorite time period, so any time spent there is great.  I loved the stuff with Ben and Nathan and the Countess.  I actually thought the whole thing should have been a bit longer, as it seemed quite rushed.  I didn't care much for the storyline that was taking place at the time, so the 1795 excursion was a welcome relief.

[Nancy]

Carolyn Groves is just amazing as Vicki - she just hits the ground running, looks perfect and frankly is a better actress than Alexandra Moltke.  This Vicki's vulnerable and scared, but she's no fool either.

I agree with you, Stuart.  I remember this flashback and one of the reasons I remember is due to Ms. Groves' performance.  It's too bad DC and company did not find her earlier to play Vicki.  Betsy was, as you said, wrong for the role and not necessarily a bad actress.

Nancy

[Brandon Collins]

I too, enjoyed this brief flashback. It tied up Vicki's character perfectly, and in the end gave her everything that she came to Collinwood searching for in the first place. That is, until they drop that little bomb during the Leviathan storyline. I'll refrain from mentioning it.

The one 1796 flashback that I DIDN'T like at ALL was the one they used to get Barnabas from 1897 back to the present. Not only was this completely unnecessary, IMO, but it just retread ground that we'd seen twice already, and I think they were trying to capitalize on the success that they may have seen from the Barn-saving-Vicki flashback that they did before.

I think they could've just had the Leviathans approach Barn in 1897 in the woods and just hold Kitty hostage instead of going through all that other crap. I found it utterly boring. Not to mention the fact that the set designers didn't do a particularly good job of making it look like 1796. The set, makeup, and basically the entire storyline, looked to me as if it was just thrown together in a half hour.

It wasn't just the set, but what really was noticeable besides the present day furnishings being in place, was Grayson's wig that was worn when she played the Countess. In 1796 it didn't look like a wig, to me at least, or perhaps was less noticeable. But in the flashback between 1897 and 1969, it looked like they just slapped that sucker on there with a lick and a promise.

Sloppy.

[IluvBarnabas]

The one 1796 flashback that I DIDN'T like at ALL was the one they used to get Barnabas from 1897 back to the present. Not only was this completely unnecessary, IMO, but it just retread ground that we'd seen twice already, and I think they were trying to capitalize on the success that they may have seen from the Barn-saving-Vicki flashback that they did before.

I think they could've just had the Leviathans approach Barn in 1897 in the woods and just hold Kitty hostage instead of going through all that other crap. I found it utterly boring. Not to mention the fact that the set designers didn't do a particularly good job of making it look like 1796. The set, makeup, and basically the entire storyline, looked to me as if it was just thrown together in a half hour.

Sloppy.

I have to say I didn't care for the sidetrack back to 1796 either after the conclusion of 1897, but since [spoiler]Kitty was the reincarnation of Josette[/spoiler] maybe the writers also thought it would have been a good idea to have her return to the original timeline that she came from. It wasn't really.

Their rehashing just about everything that happened between Josette and the Countess in Josette's room and Josette and Angelique on Widows' Hill just didn't have the same emotional, suspenseful effect that it had the first time. It seem to me the actors were just going through the paces during this time.  :-

[Mysterious Benefactor]

maybe the writers also thought it would have been a good idea to have her return to the original timeline that she came from. It wasn't really.

I have to say that during DS' original run I really enjoyed the return to 1796 and the night Josette killed herself - and it was most probably for a reason that's completely lost in this day and age when every DS episode is available on VHS (and soon to be available on DVD). Namely that we had only seen those events once and it was fun to see them again, albeit with a slightly different outcome.

Also, back in 1968 when Ep #425 originally aired, I wasn't audiotaping the show (because I didn't have a tape recorder), but by Ep #885 I was taping the shows every day and saving the ones that I really liked. From that perspective I thought it was really great to have the scenes between Josette and Natalie as the prophecy began and then Angelique's taunting of Josette on Widows' Hill. In fact, I STILL have the audiotape from Ep #885 - even though I no longer own a reel-to-reel tape recorder to play it on.