1795:a query

[michael c]

this is going to be a long one.i just completed the task of viewing the 1795 story in it's entirety on vid.i have a few(probably asked before)qustions.for starters, victoria was not just a passive observer but an active participant in the events of that year, barnabas knew her.so why didn't he recognize her when he arrived in 1967?when phyllis wick first appears at the 67 seance she was on her way to collinwood for the first time(in 95).but when time returns to the present barnabas knows her.how could he if she never arrived at collinwood in 1795?in 1795 real time,who was sara's governess,phyllis or vicki?let's not forget that while "time stood still" at present day collinwood,the story actually began in 67 but ended in 68(oops!).in 1795 josette thought vicki to be a witch,so why did she often protect her in the future and communicate through her at several seances?was maggie evans josette reincarnated or did she only resemble her?why did millicent,daniel and the countess dupres stay on months after the wedding was canceled?why was suki staying at collinwood?with the house constantly "in mourning" why did the ladies continue to wear colorful,lively costumes instead of black?and in future generations,did no one think it odd that nearly the entire family dies within a few months of each other?i'm sure i'll think of more.

[ProfStokes]

Good questions, mscbryk!  A couple of them have come up before.  Regarding Barnabas, Phyllis Wick, and Victoria, Dr. Eric Lang has posted some brilliant diagrams and descriptions of parallel timelines that were created by Vicki going back to 1795.   If you visit the Current Talk IV board and see the topic "Time Paradoxes--1795 and 1897?" you can see them for yourself.

...

Essentially, he suggests that when Vicki returned to the present, she was in another band of time than the one she had left; therefore, Barnabas would not have recognized Vicki when he emerged from his coffin because all of that took place in the Phyllis Wick timeline (erm, maybe it would be easier if you just saw the diagrams, lol.)

As for Millicent, I think Joshua kept her around hoping to somehow tie her wealth to his own branch of the family.  Natalie probably remained to watch over Josette.

Was Suki actually living at Collinwood, or did she just spend all her free time there?  Perhaps Millicent invited her to stay because presumably, Suki was her sister-in-law to be.

I hope this helps.

ProfStokes

[tripwire]

Here is another you will come up with Bryk......The portraits of Barnabas look just like him.   The Painting of Angelique looks just like her......In later episodes, the Painting of Quentin will look just like him.......But that painting of Josette looks nothing like her....I am sure that the writers had no idea that when the painting was drawn very early in the show that it would get connected to Maggie, and so on, or they would have it looking much more like Naggie. 

[Miss_Winthrop]

I actually see a slight resemblence between Josette and Maggie. Mostly throught the eyes. I do have one complaint about the Barnabas portrait. Robert Costello sat for the original portrait and they just left the face off waiting for Barnabas.  Except for the final face, the portait is Costello's body but the neck on the portait is nothing like Frid's.  Frid seemed a to have more mass throughout his neck and shoulders than Costello IMO.

[Patti Feinberg]

why did millicent,daniel and the countess dupres stay on months after the wedding was canceled?why was suki staying at collinwood?

Millicent and Daniel were Joshua's cousins or niece/nephew.

Countess Dupres....they didn't have airplanes...maybe she was waiting for an answer as to what happened to her niece.

Suki was Nathan's wife, but he lied and presented her to Collins' as his sister; since (I forget if he & Millicent were as yet married) Nathan was marrying into Collins family, pretty common occurance to have one's 'spinster' sister live with him.

Patti

[michael c]

suki was a pretty foxy "spinster".i kind of liked her.does anyone else think the actress(jane draper i believe) should have been brought back as another character?

[dom]

Perhaps she could have taken the role of Buffy Harrington or Sabrina Stewart or Roxanne (Willie's mysterious girlfriend), or Roxanne or Amanda Harris. My vote would go to her showing up as Willie's girlfriend.

I remember Suki Forbes but I don't really remember anything other than that she was blond.

[Gothick]

Suki Forbes was a HOOT!  If memory serves she was from Baltimore, an old stomping-ground of yours truly--she definitely had that sassy, slightly sleazy Balto edge--can't you just see her performing on "the Block" (for old-timers) in the profession she was in when Nathan first met her?

And you didn't ask, but my personal opinion (ever the maverick!) is that 1795 is the most over-rated of all the DS storylines.  I think it starts out beautifully and builds up until the curse but then slumps dreadfully after the death of a certain pivotal character.  I find the Vicki's trial sequences and Vicki/Peter romance to be among the most snooze-worthy moments in DS history.

That said, the storyline does boast some of DS' finest moments, but in my opinion that could be said of all the other storylines as well.

G.

[Raineypark]

Parhaps 1795 enjoys so much positive response in part because it was the FIRST time-travel story.  Unexpected, novel, and different.  None of the other "past" stories had that going for them.

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....

[Mysterious Benefactor]

does anyone else think the actress(jane draper i believe) should have been brought back as another character?

I totally agree. Draper was definitely someone I wish we'd seen more of - but alas...

That said, the storyline does boast some of DS' finest moments, but in my opinion that could be said of all the other storylines as well.

Again, I totally agree. 

[Cassandra Blair]

  I find the Vicki's trial sequences and Vicki/Peter romance to be among the most snooze-worthy moments in DS history. 

Totally in agreement with you on this, Gothick!  Although 1795/96 overall is just magic, the trial and the romance are sooooo boring.  But then the other time travel (1897, 1840) sequences suffer from the same problem.  They start off with a bunch of really great and interesting ideas, but once they've peaked they just kind of peter (pun intended) out.

I have also kind of wondered why the Countess stayed on so long.  Particularly after Josette's death, there doesn't seem to be any purpose to her being there.  Perhaps like her lookalike Dr. Julia Hoffman, she's the house guest that just never leaves.

And just what the hell happened to Andre DuPres?  He wasn't even around much after the wedding got cancelled.  I certainly don't remember seeing him any time immediately prior to or after Josette's header off Widow's Hill.

It IS very strange that with all the deaths at Collinwood, nobody seems to be in mourning for more than an episode or two.  Seems totally inappropriate for a rich family of the time.

I think that part of the reason nobody from later generations ever thought it was weird that so many family members died so close together was that Joshua rewrote the family history so that posterity wouldn't see how freakish the events of that time appeared. 

With Millicent gone nuts, Daniel only a child and Ben slavishly devoted to the good memory of "Mr. Barnabas," there pretty much wasn't anybody around to contradict Joshua's version of events.  If you'll remember, Naomi's headstone claims a much later date of death for her than 1796, as it must have been.

Makes you wonder how much of what we learn about history has a similar subjective spin on events.

[tripwire]

Another thing about 1795 was Daniel, he didnt make an appearence in the 1795 flashback until very late, but we are supposed to assume he has been there since Millicent got there, as he talked about Vicki like he had been there the entire time....I agree about the later part of 1795   it drug out way too long, as opposed to the first part, where things moved quickly.

[Gothick]

Folks, just to clarify:  I'm not saying 1795 is bad.  I think overall it's a great story, even though it contradicted practically everything we had told about the past of the Collins Family up till that time--certainly everything about Barnabas and Josette (just go back 3 weeks before the start of 1795 to a long scene between Barnabas and Julia where he admits to her that Josette in life *never* reciprocated his love).

I just think that it's overrated.  Time and again, fans run polls on the best storyline, and 1795 always winds up winning.

Of the historical storylines, I personally prefer 1897.  Jeeeeepseeeee!  I don' kno NAHSSINGK!

And then there's Count Petofi, who may have been the most literate character in all American television history.

G.

[michael c]

i havn't seen the other time-travel stories in thier entirety yet.i too think 1795 starts off with a bang but drags on too long.nathan/millicent and vicki/peter are pretty dull.but i think the story redeems itself in it's final few eps., like naomi's suicide is so sad and i liked b's revenge on nathan.it was strange how daniel didn't even show up until late in the story and then carried on as if vicki had been his governess for years(i can't recall a scene between them until after vicki leaves collinwood).in my post-1795 viewings i just saw the ep. where vicki and barnabas get into the car crash.i watched it over and again because the two of them in this cheesy fake car was just too good!

[Patti Feinberg]

Of the historical storylines, I personally prefer 1897.  Jeeeeepseeeee!  I don' kno NAHSSINGK!

And then there's Count Petofi, who may have been the most literate character in all American television history.

OOOHHH....a man (Steve) who takes my breath away!!!

love ya dahling (and I love my Count Petofi!!!!)

Patti