Parallel Time

[spoiler]And lets not even get into the fact that Angelique was more OCD than Martha Stewart could ever be, what with her insistence that the furniture and brick-a-brack in the drawing room (and presumably every room never be moved even the sligtest fraction of inch from where she wanted it to be placed!  )[/spoiler]

Yeah, like I said before, this Angelique is NUTS!  A true sociopathic lunatic.  RT Angie is just a selfish, possessive, conniving bitch!    Of course, she, like her PT counterpart is also a sociopath.

The problem with Roxanne for me is that she came out of nowhere and Barnabas's love for her also comes out of nowhere. I dislike them for the same reason I dislike Quentin & Amanda. No development, just BAM! Instant love.

Yeah, I totally agree w/this, Q&A?  WTF!!??  When did he stop loving Beth?  Hello???  

"Whoever loves you will die", seems ambiguous at best to me. If you go by words alone: "Whoever loves you will die", Julia should've been dead pretty early on. 

Angeliques own definition of love was obviously not one of restrained affection, watching from afar and hoping to one day build into true intimacy.  Therefore, the curse hasn't touched Julia, not a romantic or declarative person, as of yet.  It has touched people who engaged in the actions of love with Barnabus (the list I gave above.)  Angelique was never very interested, either, in people instantly dropping dead.  Someone who created the dream curse is clearly more interested in drama, so the curse works by ensuring the tragic fate of whoever loves Barnabus.  That is how I see it, at least.

True, but, [spoiler]how do you explain Sarah, Naomi and yes, even Abagail?  They all loved him, but weren't in a romantic situation w/him, and they all died.  For that matter, the present day family, I'm sure, loved him as a cousin.  They didn't die either.[/spoiler]

At any rate, it's difficult to see Angelique as a motherly figure--in either time period.  She's far too self-centred to be a good caregiver.  Quentin, too, is hardly in any scene with his son, and he also seems like a poor parent. 

Hell, that could be said for any and ALL Collins parents, LOL!  With the exception of Liz in RT, Flora in 1840 and PT Flora, all are terrible, uninvolved parent's!    [spoiler]One can only hope that Bramwell and Catherine, because they are CRAZY about each other and thrilled w/her pregnancy (except for the initial angst of Morgan finding out) will be better parents.[/spoiler]

At any rate, it's difficult to see Angelique as a motherly figure--in either time period.  She's far too self-centred to be a good caregiver.  Quentin, too, is hardly in any scene with his son, and he also seems like a poor parent. 

Hell, that could be said for any and ALL Collins parents, LOL!  With the exception of Liz in RT, Flora in 1840 and PT Flora, all are terrible, uninvolved parent's!    [spoiler]One can only hope that Bramwell and Catherine, because they are CRAZY about each other and thrilled w/her pregnancy (except for the initial angst of Morgan finding out) will be better parents.[/spoiler]

But you can add Mrs. Johnson to the list of exceptions:  she seemed to care about her troubled, criminally-involved son.  Oh, and add Jenny too.  She did love her "babies."  Still, I guess you're right:  Angelique's just one of many bad Collins parents.  Luckily, RT Angelique and Barnabas never had any kids.  What would have been the result?

But you can add Mrs. Johnson to the list of exceptions:  she seemed to care about her troubled, criminally-involved son.  Oh, and add Jenny too.  She did love her "babies."  Still, I guess you're right:  Angelique's just one of many bad Collins parents.  Luckily, RT Angelique and Barnabas never had any kids.  What would have been the result?

True, Jenny was very maternal, forgot about her.  But I don't know that I necessarily agree about Mrs. J.  Don't get me wrong, I simply ADORE her (she's a hoot and a half!) but she was always verbally abusing Harry, saying he was a troublemaker etc...and of course, the abuse started at birth when she named him Harry w/a surname like Johnson!     Makes me wonder how she treated her mentioned, but never seen, daughter.

As for B&A, we can be eternally grateful they never bred, LOL!

Interesting thread as I have been reading through the posts.  One thing I didn't see mentioned, though, was the fact that the main characters, Quentin, Angelique Maggie and Hoffman were STRAIGHT out of DuMaurier's Rebecca. I think a lot of the weaknesses of the plot come from that: Quentin has to be a bullying jackass, Maggie has to have a backbone of limp linguinini (Keep in mind that the 2nd Mrs. DeWinter didn't even have a NAME) Hoffman/Mrs. Danvers is an obsessed psychopath in love with Angelique/Rebecca, who is rotten to the core beneath the veneer of adoration and perfection.

The thing that makes PT  interesting to watch is how they took is how they combined that plot and Jekyl and Hyde and threw in the original things and it still all worked.

Interesting thread as I have been reading through the posts.  One thing I didn't see mentioned, though, was the fact that the main characters, Quentin, Angelique Maggie and Hoffman were STRAIGHT out of DuMaurier's Rebecca. I think a lot of the weaknesses of the plot come from that: Quentin has to be a bullying jackass, Maggie has to have a backbone of limp linguinini (Keep in mind that the 2nd Mrs. DeWinter didn't even have a NAME) Hoffman/Mrs. Danvers is an obsessed psychopath in love with Angelique/Rebecca, who is rotten to the core beneath the veneer of adoration and perfection.

The thing that makes PT  interesting to watch is how they took is how they combined that plot and Jekyl and Hyde and threw in the original things and it still all worked.

You're quite right about PT being a bit too Rebecca-derived.  I picked up a copy of the novel the other day and as I've been reading it, I've noticed how close the plots are.  Even the dialogue is eerily identical.  That said, Rebecca certainly doesn't have the identical twins, Jekyll/Hyde, Carolyn & Will, murder mystery stuff that PT has...at least, not from what I've read so far (I'm about 1/3 of the way through as of now).  I think I ought to watch PT again after I read Rebecca.  I'm enjoying the book a lot, and PT has always been a favourite of mine.

You're quite right about PT being a bit too Rebecca-derived.  I picked up a copy of the novel the other day and as I've been reading it, I've noticed how close the plots are.  Even the dialogue is eerily identical.  That said, Rebecca certainly doesn't have the identical twins, Jekyll/Hyde, Carolyn & Will, murder mystery stuff that PT has...at least, not from what I've read so far (I'm about 1/3 of the way through as of now).  I think I ought to watch PT again after I read Rebecca.  I'm enjoying the book a lot, and PT has always been a favourite of mine.

The book is quite interesting; Du Maurier wrote GOOD gothics.  And by the way you're right, you WON'T find the other subplots in Rebecca.  You'll also note a number of other changes to the main plot as you go along.  Interesting thing here is I remember reading the book for the first time in Junior High (I had made the mistake of telling the teacher how many times I'd already read Gone With the Wind, so she insisted I pick something else and recommended Rebecca as something a person who loved GWTW would like.  She was right.  ).  By that time DS was over and gone and I honestly don't remember the book reminding me of DS when I first read it.  Then again, maybe I had just missed seeing most of that storyline during the original run. (The mad dash home from day camp when the busses didn't even get back to the school till 4pm did me in on pieces of most of the storylines.)

the book rebecca was great and the movie stands the test of time
Mrs Danvers was so weird i love the scene when she is showing the second Mrs
D. Rebecca's "intimates" and saying they were hand made by nuns it was too funny
as one that thought nuns never wore underwear or even knew what they were
i thought Hoffman did a fine job with her role and wondered what Mrs danvers would have been
like if Rebecca had come back

jennifer

Jeannie... the Rebecca plagiarism is my main complaint about PT, that and the Jeckyl/Hyde pilfering, but I decided that everyone must be sick of my going on about it by now.     Once those two excrutiatingly predictable storylines play out (if only the maid/2nd Mrs. DeWinter thing, and the J/Hyde thing, had taken a drastically unexpected turn...), PT starts to get interesting for me.     Things loosen up, and they're not in a straightjacket anymore.     It's not a job watching it anymore.    Until then, I keep screaming in my head, Hoffman, tell her to jump out the window already!

I love Rebecca and the Rebeccaesque elements 1970PT incorporates. But I have to confess that when I originally watched 1970PT and first loved it in '70, I'd never read Rebecca or seen the movie, so the story was fresh for me (not to mention it was an infinite improvement over the insanity that was the last weeks of Leviathans). Perhaps if I'd first seen 1970PT when I was more aware of Rebecca, it might have been different.    But even at that, as I stated in a previous post, even now that I am aware of Rebecca, I grow to love 1970PT even more with each subsequent viewing because the levels of the plot and the construction of the storyline just seem to deepen for me.

Until then, I keep screaming in my head, Hoffman, tell her to jump out the window already!

Well, you have to admit that the way that element from Rebecca plays out is different because it's [spoiler]Angelique/Rebecca who encourages Maggie/Noname to jump, whereas Hoffman/Mrs. Danvers simply listens outside the door. In fact, Hoffman hates the very idea that Angelique would go to such lengths to get rid of Maggie.[/spoiler]

I love Rebecca and the Rebeccaesque elements 1970PT

I find it very interesting that once they'd gone through all the classic horror plots (Dracula, The Wolfman, Frankenstein) they turned to classic literature.  First Rebecca (1970PT) and then Wuthering Heights (1841PT).  And like 70 PT with it's throwing in of other plots (Jekyl/Hyde), 1841 PT also threw in a good smattering of The Lottery by Shirley Jackson.   

[True, Jenny was very maternal, forgot about her.  But I don't know that I necessarily agree about Mrs. J.  Don't get me wrong, I simply ADORE her (she's a hoot and a half!) but she was always verbally abusing Harry, saying he was a troublemaker etc...and of course, the abuse started at birth when she named him Harry w/a surname like Johnson!     Makes me wonder how she treated her mentioned, but never seen, daughter.

Do you suppose the Werewolves on Dark Shadows had Hairy Johnsons?         

Okay, me bad 

Michael   

Jeannie... the Rebecca plagiarism is my main complaint about PT, that and the Jeckyl/Hyde pilfering, but I decided that everyone must be sick of my going on about it by now.

I can understand your point of view, even though I rather enjoy that aspect.  Two reasons I think.  Not only am I an English Lit major (the other major was History, big shock I know to those who know me. ) but I also spent a lot of time in the fandoms for Star Wars and Indiana Jones, where the steals from books, old movies (and just about everything not nailed down) were a big part of the fun.  Spot the in joke and figure out which movie THAT came from were the big sports.

PT and 1897 are the storylines that did it the most -- and the most obviously -- I think. But then again there IS 1841 and "The Lottery" not to mention the Jane Eyre steals in EVERY storyline....  And, as you say, the interesting stuff is really in the additions, twists and turns that change the "known" plot into DS.

Now this is making me wonder: Did they do it ONLY as a quick and dirty way to come up with stories under the unreal pressures of writing for daytime TV? Or, as with the Lucas films, was it also the nudge nudge wink wink  acknowledgement of the material that inspired it all?