I've stated my own views about "canon" a few times here.  As far as I am concerned, Return to Collinwood is not canon.  Period. 

I learned the hard way because for the longest time, I regarded Sam Hall's early 1970s TV Guide article as canon.  It was MB who finally made me realize that while I could enjoy the article for what it was, what is was not was part of the DS canon.

The idea of people treating the Lara Parker novels as canon... well, it's a free country, at least where speculation about Dark Shadows is concerned.

G.

"Parker didn't do her research"--thanks, Joey, for that laugh.  I needed it tonight.

cheers, Gothick

The spoilers from the John August script--you may never have read those, MB--included the note that Julia and Angelique hated one another for reasons that had nothing to do with Barnabas.  I hardly consider that comment a spoiler--more like a teaser--but then, some people have odd notions (odd to this writer, at least) as to what constitutes a spoiler.

Those spoilers were so off-the-wall in some cases in terms of what actually happened in the completed film that they must either have been based on an early draft of August's script--or been completely fabricated.  I have speculated that the fabrication might have been a deliberate act of disinformation by person or persons unknown.

Best,  G.

And needless to say, best wishes to John Karlen as he continues on his road back to health/wellness!

G.

I love Humbert Allen Astredo, and the 1968 Nicholas is my all time favorite Astredo performance. 

dom, I always thought that Cassandra was returned to Hell as a result of Trask's incantations (ridiculous though the idea seems on paper) because she had no actual mortal existence in 1968.  She was a displaced spirit who had a "body" that existed as a result of Witchcraft.  How or why the antics of a ghostly Elmer Gantry type could have any effect whatsoever in casting out such a powerful spirit whose magic, as she frequently told us, "came from the Devil himself," is never made clear.  My own glint of an idea is that because Trask came from the same era when Angelique (in the ORIGINAL storyline, not the subsequent revisions) had her mortal existence, that fact gave him the power to return her spirit to the darkness from which it had come.

I'll really have to re-watch to spot the pornographic antics between Roger Davis and Joel Crothers you mention...

So pleased you are enjoying Humbert and Nicholas!  He's a strong part of why 1968 is my forever personal favorite storyline.

G.

The topic of this article is "Buffy, the vampire slayer" (WARNING: spoilers for early seasons) but I think some of the general thoughts could be applied to why we love DS so much...

http://the-toast.net/2013/08/14/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-a-new-version-of-you/

Best,

G.

That's good to know, Quentin. 

G.

The 1821 death date for Naomi presumably carried over for the original backstory for Barnabas, in which his own death happened in the 1830s (I'm thinking 1832 or 1837 for some reason?).  I should write, THE PROP for Naomi's tablet in the crypt was a holdover from previous years and nobody probably bothered to think, "Hey, we changed the storyline, we need to fix this."

I remember reading long ago, in an issue of 16 I think, that in one scripting session around 1970, nobody in the room could remember what had happened when in a previous storyline.  They were baffled as to how to proceed and then somebody said, "Hey, the studio kids are outside--let's ask THEM!"  and of course, they were able to quote chapter and verse.

G.