Was Stokes the Show's Most Important Character?

Considering the information and advice Stokes often emparted to Julia, Barnabas, and others -- I have often wondered if Stokes may have been the (or one of the) most important character(s) on DS.  I guess I am referring to the the post-Barnabas years here.   Looking back, I really don't see how the show could have progressed as it did, without Stokes.

This thought also makes me wonder what the 1990 show planned to do without Woodard (Stokes), after Woodard was killed.  Which character was going to play the "Stokes" role?  Maggie perhaps?

Also makes me wonder how the 2004 series could have progressed without Stokes. 

Seems to me that in every incarnation of DS --  Barnabas, Julia, and Vickie needed to remain somewhat naive to super-natural occurances.  Stokes seemed the perfect "outsider" to explain what needed to be explained, so that the "stars" could stumble forward in their journey.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Stokes was a great character (though I prefer early Stokes) but I don't feel he was the show's most important character. That part or supernatural iinterpreter could have just as easily been taken up by Julia, Vickie and dozen others. Vickie would have been my choice and maybe AM might have stayed on the show. In my opinion Barnabas was the lead character. Love JF but still not sure if this helped or hurt DS though apparently it WAS in danger of being cancelled before Frid came on board. So, I guess it was Barnie, for better or worse.

I sort of think that's what TPTB had planned for the 2004 version -- Vicki would have played both the "Vicki" and the "Julia" roles (being a much stronger and wiser character than Molkte's "ingenue" on the Original), while the new Julia would have been a combination of the "original Julia" and Stokes.  The new Julia might have been a bit more removed from the action (replaced by a wiser Vicki), yet Julia would have provided a link to the supernatural that had previously been provided by Stokes and Woodard.

Either way, it seems to me important that Barnabas and his partner(s) remain somewhat naive to the supernatural.  They, after all -- have much in common with the audience.

An I off  base here?

I think it's very likely that the only reason Stokes existed was because Thayer David was a member of the ensemble.  If he hadn't already been in place, I doubt they would have come up with the character.

Having said that, I'm also positive that Prof. Stokes was a superb character, and became an essential part of the dynamic between Julia and Barnabas.  If not for Elliot, there would have been a tedious sameness to their relationship.  And they would have spent a lot more time finding answers to their mysteries, which is the death knell of good soap operas.....

Yes, Thayer David needed a part to play.  The show could have existed without Stokes, but I think he added a lot of flavour to the plotlines, especially the Dream Curse story.  I only wish he had been used more in the last year or so, but he wasn't the sort of character that could be used in every episode or in every situation.

I certainly won't disagree that Stokes was a crucial character.  Many times Barnabas and Julia (or anyone else at Collinwood for that matter) were helpless or too confused about what was happening to them and went running to the good professor for help.  Stokes always had the answers and the tools to tackle the paranormal and was ready to face down the unknown.  He was calm and reasonable and unlike Barnabas or Julia, he didn't have a hidden agenda or a personal stake in the bizarre goings-on.  I think this made him more unbiased in such cases as what to do with Adam or whether Vicki should be helped back to 1795.  

I don't think the characters could have got by without Stokes's assistance.  While it's true that the knowledge of how to handle the supernatural could have been divided among the characters, (after all, it was Dr. Guthrie who initiated the seances) I don't think the other qualities that made Stokes so relevant--magnanimity, fairness, courage, confidence, intelligence--could have been reassigned so easily.  It was better to have one person who embodied all of these characteristics, and Prof. Stokes fit the bill.  He may not have been the most important character-- several storylines ran without much involvement from Stokes, whereas it was more unusual for Barnabas or Julia to be absent for long--but I believe his character was necessary to advance the story lines and to provide a contrast to the general craziness.

ProfStokes

I was watching some Dream Curse episodes today and I was just floored by how good Thayer David and the character are.  It's a massive shame that Stokes wasn't one of the show's front-runners, because he's just electric - everything you want in a character. He's witty, brave, literate, surprising and clever - and best of all, he's just endlessly interesting.

Thayer has an incredible flair for making the fantastic and silly seem real and compelling - no matter how hokey the situation or dialogue, he plays it with intregrity, passion and conviction. And, above all, you sense that this is a special character and a special actor. Nothing humdrum or ordinary here - Stokes can be in a scene doing nothing, yet he always counts.

As for the WB pilot, sharp-eared viewers will have spotted that Stokes already played a crucial role in the proceedings.  With that in mind, I've no doubt he'd have turned up on the show before too long.

Stuart, for those of us who haven't seen the 2004 pilot, can you please explain your comment?   I understand that one of the characters was supposedly a protoge of the "un-seen" Professor Stokes, and that is literally ALL I know.  Any details you can provide would be appreciated.

By your comments and others I have read, I assume Stokes was mentioned, but not seen in the pilot.

Details, please. . .

In the pilot, Willie's girlfriend Kelly mentions her university professor...

Kelly: Stokes..
Willie: The freak with the beret?
Kelly: Bow-tie. He has some pretty wild theories about the Collins family...

She then explains that he's told her about the hidden fortune in the mausoleum and has worked out the location from rare papers he's assigned her to index.  So, indirectly, Stokes is the reason that Barnabas is released this time around, and I'm sure that wasn't coincidental. 

i think stokes is an intersting and inportant figure of the D.S. universe but he is not the most important.

Barnabas is the driving force of all things supernatural, Julia is the scientist/medical expert, Willie is muscule, and Stokes provides insight and tidbits of info not easily accessable to the others

Dr. Guthrie was a forerunner to Professor Stokes in the 1967 Laura Collins story.  Too bad they killed him off, he would have been great use during the first Barnabas story.

Though, they may never have brought TD back for 1795.

Stokes was an improtant character in DS, if he went back in time instead of Barnabas to 1840 and 1897, he would have known to keep a distance and not interfere with anything by just watching things as they happened and then deduce what to do in the present time.

Stokes is one of my favorite characters. It sounds like they (the people doing the re-make) knew that he should be on the show. I would have loved to see their take on him. It sounds like we wouldn't have had the "Ben Loomis" character that I disliked so much from the 1991 version. Of course they could have been stupid and killed him off right away like they did with Prof. Woodard in 1991.

It would have been so great if the show would have been picked up. Even if it ended up not being exactly what some of us might like, it would have brought renewed interest in all things Dark Shadows.

 While I don't feel Professor Stokes was the most important character in the series, he certainly was a very important character and was vital to several of the show's storylines. 

Prof. Stokes was pretty much the star of the very first episode of Dark Shadows I ever saw (back in June 1968) and he's always been front and center among the show's significant characters for me.  In some ways, he is also the one who is closest to my own personality--I definitely have a "cat complex" although I try to enjoy my evening cheese well before bedtime!

G.

While I don't feel Professor Stokes was the most important character in the series, he certainly was a very important character and was vital to several of the show's storylines.

I totally agree,  Professor Stokes was a blast and always a joy to watch! And also I think one of the show's most honest characters. Only time he wasn't quite 100% honest was [spoiler]when he was hiding Adam and lied about it to Joe and the sheriff, but his heart was in the right place. He just wanted to make an honest and good person out of Adam, but unfortunately this was underminded by Nicholas who manipulated Adam into doing dishonest, despicable things to do his bidding. Nicholas just wanted to use Adam for his own evil plans and didn't really care about him, but Stokes did. He may not have liked some of the things Adam did, but he never gave up hope on the guy.[/spoiler]

Of all the characters Thayer David played, the professor was my personal favorite, though I love all his characters. Even when Stokes got disillusioned  and frusterated with some of the folks (namely Barnabas and Julia) in Collinsport, when push came to shove though he really did come in through the cinch.