Episode #630

Oh boy, does the new Vicki look dumpy! In all of New York they couldn't find a more attractive actress? Why didn't they give the part to Jaclyn Smith? I know she tried out,(this is were she met Roger Davis), and Ms. Smith is a much better actress. Yuck, to the new Miss Winters.

Also wondering why Nicholas Blair didn't just use some witchcraft on Vicki to make her stop interfering, instead of bringing in someone else to deal with her. Seems that doing it yourself you'd be more assured of success.

Misa

Oh boy, does the new Vicki look dumpy! In all of New York they couldn't find a more attractive actress? Why didn't they give the part to Jaclyn Smith? I know she tried out,(this is were she met Roger Davis), and Ms. Smith is a much better actress. Yuck, to the new Miss Winters.

I didn't know Jaclyn Smith auditioned!  That's interesting.  If you're talking about Betsy Durkin I totally agree w/you.  I think Charles Ellis refers to her as Betsy Wetsy, LOL!   Is that right Charles?  

Right you are!  Probably the worst casting decision ever on DS!!  Ironically, Carolyn Groves (her replacement) was far better, and she looked and acted like Alexandra Moltke.  Watch her episodes from the 1796 reprise in early '69 and you'll see what I mean.  Ms. Groves would've been great as a permanent replacement for Alexandra, but by then the powers that be has shifted their focus to Maggie as the new governess in the "Turn of the Screw" storyline with the ghosts of Quentin and Beth.

BTW, I've always regretted that Alexandra wasn't able to stick around for David Selby's arrival.  A Vicki-Quentin pairing would have been most interesting- far more exciting than Jeff Clark, and coming damn close to the wonderful chemistry between Alexandra's Vicki and Mitchell Ryan's Burke Devlin!!

Well, somebody's got to stick up for Betsy Wetsy...or, I mean, Betsy Durkin.    I didn't think she was too bad.  She was filling in for one of the main characters on the show, that can't be an easy job, and I think she did all right.  Of course, I didn't care too much for Alexandra Moltke, so maybe my standards were a bit lower.  I agree about Vicki #3 in the 1795 flashback, she was excellent. 

Ironically, Carolyn Groves (her replacement) was far better, and she looked and acted like Alexandra Moltke.  Watch her episodes from the 1796 reprise in early '69 and you'll see what I mean.  Ms. Groves would've been great as a permanent replacement for Alexandra, but by then the powers that be has shifted their focus to Maggie as the new governess in the "Turn of the Screw" storyline with the ghosts of Quentin and Beth. 

I too agree that Groves was much better and seemed to act more like Alexandra did.

i skipped ahead of the unfortunate ms.durkins' episodes.i just couldn't take it.
as for looking dumpy she had some shoes to fill.in this viewer's very biased opinion ms.moltke was breathtakingly beautiful.

i'm not sure what to think of ms.groves.she wasn't bad but as someone pointed out here recently that trip back in time was one too many.it seemed to really have no point to me.the storyline had clearly shifted to quentin's haunting of collinwood.that's where all the attention was being focused.the storyline with barnabas going back in time to save vicki came out of nowhere and didn't really change anything in the present or affect the rest of the story.at the end of the day vicki was still back in time.

the only reason to tell this story i think was if they could have gotten alexandra back for those episodes.it might have provided some closure for the actress and the character.but to bring in yet another actress for 3 episodes didn't really make sense.

i skipped ahead of the unfortunate ms.durkins' episodes.i just couldn't take it.
as for looking dumpy she had some shoes to fill.in this viewer's very biased opinion ms.moltke was breathtakingly beautiful.

i'm not sure what to think of ms.groves.she wasn't bad but as someone pointed out here recently that trip back in time was one too many.it seemed to really have no point to me.the storyline had clearly shifted to quentin's haunting of collinwood.that's where all the attention was being focused.the storyline with barnabas going back in time to save vicki came out of nowhere and didn't really change anything in the present or affect the rest of the story.at the end of the day vicki was still back in time.

the only reason to tell this story i think was if they could have gotten alexandra back for those episodes.it might have provided some closure for the actress and the character.but to bring in yet another actress for 3 episodes didn't really make sense.

I agree with you completely, I always thought that Alexandra was very beautiful (Ms Durkin was not), and before the PTB decided to make her so clueless Vicki was interesting too. I was the one whe said that this was one too many times to go back to 1795, I also didn't like it when they go back yet again at the end of the 1897 story.

I wish that Dan Curtis would have reconsidered letting Ms Molke play and evil character. I would have been thrilled to see her on Dark Shadows again.

Misa

the only reason to tell this story i think was if they could have gotten alexandra back for those episodes.it might have provided some closure for the actress and the character.but to bring in yet another actress for 3 episodes didn't really make sense.

I really wish Alexandra had been Vicki in those last episodes in 1796. That would've made it feel less pointless to me, as I would've like to have seen the goodbye scene between Barnabas and Vicki with AM back as Vicki. Then that scene would've been great. They should've just let Vicki go and not have mentioned her character again unless they knew they could get Moltke back....

If I was at http://www.jumptheshark.com , I would vote for Same Character, Different Actor (Betsy Durkin for Alexandra Moltke), and (Carolyn Groves for Besty Durkin and Alexandra Moltke).

i haven't thought about this story in a long time but this post reminded me of something i hadn't thought about when i was watching it.

vicki is drawn back in time by jeff clark/peter bradford.but in the past wasn't peter bradford dead?
remember vicki found his grave in 1968.and i seem to recall julia finding some town records that confirm he had died in 1795.

so how was he alive to draw vicki back to the past?how was he alive and well when barnabas traveled back to save her?

.it seemed to really have no point to me.the storyline had clearly shifted to quentin's haunting of collinwood.that's where all the attention was being focused.the storyline with barnabas going back in time to save vicki came out of nowhere and didn't really change anything in the present or affect the rest of the story.at the end of the day vicki was still back in time.

The reason that excursion took place was that the fan mail demanded it. The fans hated that Vicki had just disappered back in time and demanded an explanation for what happened to her there. So, the writers put together the three and a half episodes in the middle of Quentin's haunting to tie Vicki's story up with the neat little bow of she and Peter supposedly going off to live happily ever after. And the reason Alexandra didn't return to play Vicki was in part because she was already too pregnant by then and didn't want to return.

All that being said, though, one of the reasons that I find what we learn of Vicki's fate during Leviathans to be such a slap in the face is because of how they'd gone to the trouble to tie up Vicki's story so neatly, yet when [spoiler]Dennis Patrick wasn't available to return as Paul Stoddard so that Paul's ghost could haunt Jeb (which had been the original plan - and which made perfect sense), they decided to have Peter (of all people ) haunt Jeb and they needed a reason to justify why Peter would haunt him, so they came up with a backstory that Jeb had conveniently been responsible for Vicki plunging to her death from Widows' Hill - which not only robbed the audience of the happy ending the writers had taken pains to give the audience - but it made absolutely no sense for Jeb to have been responsible for anything in 1796 when he merely existed as essence at that time.[/spoiler]
But then, don't get me started all over again on that wacky plot development because I've already written ad nauseam about how senseless it all was. 

vicki is drawn back in time by jeff clark/peter bradford.but in the past wasn't peter bradford dead?
remember vicki found his grave in 1968.and i seem to recall julia finding some town records that confirm he had died in 1795.

so how was he alive to draw vicki back to the past?how was he alive and well when barnabas traveled back to save her?

Peter wasn't hanged until April 3, 1796 and the events that Barnabas was drawn back to took place during the end of March. 

spoiler from MB

[spoiler]Dennis Patrick wasn't available to return as Paul Stoddard so that Paul's ghost could haunt Jeb (which had been the original plan - and which made perfect sense)[/spoiler]

Why wasn't he available?

Thanks,

Patti

You know even if he wasn't available why wouldn't they still have used the ghost of Paul Stoddard anyway. They had Jeremiah's ghost even though Anthony George didn't play him. And yes ruining the happy ending for Vicki and Jeff was pointless.

Misa

Why wasn't he available?

Does anyone know why TPTB didn't want Paul's character on?

He left to film the movie "Joe", which was released later that year.