Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Gothick

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 »
2311
Current Talk '12 II / Re: the witchcraft nonsense in 1840
« on: September 23, 2012, 07:23:34 PM »
In other news, I agree that the trial scenes in both 1795 and 1840 tend to be a crashing bore, IMNSHO.  I do find the 1840 scenes slightly more watchable because the actors involved are more interesting.  On the other hand, Roger Davis may be absent in 1840, but we still have to do with Addison Powell.

cheers, G.

2312
Current Talk '12 II / Re: are the big finish dramas canon?
« on: September 23, 2012, 06:44:37 PM »
I strongly disagree about the Big Finish shows being considered as canon.

I've already written about this several times so I am not going to beat it into the ground.  In all fandoms, ONLY the original broadcast material of a TV show is canon.  Everything else, including movie spinoffs starring the same actors who appeared in the original series, is ITS OWN canon, as a spinoff, adaptation, or what have you.

That is why we don't treat the events of House and Night of DS as canon for the original series.  Consider them as taking place in an alternate universe version of the DS of canon if you must relate it somehow.

I don't see why this definition should seem so difficult for some to accept.  Of course I am just giving the accepted definition. If you wish to re-define, go for it.  After all, the DS writers themselves frequently re-defined material established in earlier canon, resulting in the series' storylines very fractured continuity.

cheers, G.

2313
Testing. 1, 2, 3... / Re: ** BIG CHANGES COMING FOR THE NEW YEAR **
« on: September 21, 2012, 12:00:02 AM »
I finally had the chance to see the September theme today.  WOW.  Am I adoring the Original Series theme!  Just some great stuff.

Thanks, MB!

2314
Uncle Roger, I've watched the PT 1970 episodes maybe three times now and it's clear that Angelique in PT 1970 is meant to be an all out psychopath.  Our Ange was obsessed by Barnabas; the PT Ange is similarly obsessed with Quentin, but to an even more extreme degree. 

I find both PT Quentin AND Maggie to be profoundly irritating characters.  But both have moments that make me think each carries the seed of a fully developed human being within, and I like to think that once they put the events of that insane Summer behind them, they would be able to nurture one another's humanity in ways that were never possible in the presence of Angelique's vicious, corrosive influence and those she chose to populate her orbit (Bruno, Cyrus, etc.).

G.

2315
Current Talk '12 II / Re: the witchcraft nonsense in 1840
« on: September 18, 2012, 03:50:30 PM »
That is cool about the Midsomer Murders story, DarkLady.  I might have to track that one down and add it to my own Netflix queue.

And I'm sorry I upset you with my speculation about Tad/Thaddeus.  For what it's worth, I remember Midnite telling me that I was wrong about that, but I can't remember why.  It might have been because of the tombstone you mentioned spotting.

If Tad did marry and father children, we heard nothing about those particular people in the 1897 story.  It could make an interesting premise for fanfic.

G.

2316
Current Talk '12 II / Re: the witchcraft nonsense in 1840
« on: September 17, 2012, 06:32:18 PM »
For what it's worth, I find each of the Trasks to have some different nuances, I imagine mostly as a result of how Lacy creates each descendant of the original character, that give the different ones more interest than you have found.  My vote for the best of them all is Gregory in 1897.  He had the most developed personality, I thought, and I actually find his comeuppance to be more satisfying than the original Trask's fate at the hands of Barnabas (I realize most fans would disagree here).  I just love Judith's series of phonecalls to her hapless hubby, particularly when she informs him, "now you have all the time you need to meditate." lol!

The 1840 Trask is interesting because he isn't clergy at all--he's been reduced to running a funeral home.  One of my favorite moments is when Samantha is discussing the funeral arrangements for Roxanne and she says that "Lamar Trask" (named after Lara Parker, btw) wanted the honor of delivering the eulogy and it gave Samantha "great satisfaction" to turn him down flat.  Clearly she despises the man.

The alliance that develops between Trask and "Gerard" probably is a case of wearing out the Trask character's welcome.  But it's such fun to watch Lacy chew the scenery that I don't mind.

It's true that a number of characters in 1840 are repeats from the past.  Lazlo, Angelique's companion, is one of them.  I've wondered why we only see him in 2 or 3 episodes.  Perhaps Michael Stroka found more regular work elsewhere?

G.

2317
Current Talk '12 II / Re: the witchcraft nonsense in 1840
« on: September 17, 2012, 12:59:21 AM »
There WERE some great Julia moments in 1840, but the fact that Grayson was away for nearly a full month didn't help the later storyline.  I really liked Grayson's work as Aunt Julia Collins in 1841 Parallel Time... I think I am in a minority here, but her scenes really rock that storyline for me, and she was in it consistently and a lot.

I liked the initial characterizations of both Gerard and Flora.  With Gerard, I found him a lot less interesting after a certain plot development.  Flora started out as a frivolous, gushing novelist, but after awhile for some reason just became the latest iteration of the standard Joan Bennett matriarch, but without the edge we got to see in Liz, Naomi and Judith.

The 1970 mysteries WEREN'T resolved in what was shown of 1840.  We never knew just why this particular quartet of ghosts was haunting the ruined Great House in 1995, nor what special role Tad and Carrie were meant to play.  I thought there was a hint of a nasty sexual edge in Gerard's interest in David in 1970, somewhat reminiscent of the Quint character's implied paedophilia in the original Turn of the Screw novella.  The fact that David Henesy left the show during 1840 meant obviously that nothing could be done with the Tad storyline.  I've always wondered whether Tad grew up to be the Thaddeus who died in the Civil War.

I don't think the Java Queen was even mentioned in the 1840 scripts.

G.

2318
Current Talk '12 II / Re: the witchcraft nonsense in 1840
« on: September 16, 2012, 03:58:53 AM »
From a historical point of view, both the 1795 and the 1840 witchcraft hysteria plots are nonsensical.  The idea of legal execution by decapitation in 1840 adds an extra note of camp craziness to the proceedings.  At least in 1840 the trial scenes do not feature Roger Davis and do have some juicy moments, particularly with the ever sublime Humbert Astredo (although I find Dawson his least interesting characterization). 

Lela Swift was the producer of DS during the 1840 period so she gets the blame for some aspects.  But she also deserves some praise for salvaging at least some elements from the story outline foreshadowed in the Summer of 1970 period, which obviously was completely unworkable within the limitations of the DS studio.  Shipboard trysts between Daphne and Gerard?  Coastal raids by bloodthirsty brigands under Gerard's secret command?  I'd love to have a clue about the last minute switches in plan that resulted in Swift just throwing it all into the rubbish bin and forcing the writers to start over. 

To me, Virginia Vestoff deserves a lot of credit for making 1840 at least occasionally watchable.  Her performance of Samantha is actually one of the highlights of the entire series to me, although it is a highlight I revisit very seldom because I find so much of 1840 to be simply beyond the pale.

The character of Joanna was an intriguing touch, and it's too bad the actress (whose name I forget) had such trouble with her dialogue.  There were some great moments in how that story played out, particularly Samantha's confrontations with Joanna. Again, Vestoff gets the credit for making all of this play much more brilliantly than would otherwise have been the case.

G.

2319
Grayson was actually very unhappy with how her work was presented in End/Road.  She did the movie for a specific scene and it wound up on the cutting room floor.  She had also hoped that the movie would be a breakthrough role in terms of the image H'wood had of her from her role in Iguana; the movie was delayed for a year due to the director's obsessive re-cutting of the final print, and slapped with an X rating due to a couple of explicit scenes (including Harris Yulin's brief full frontal male nudity).  As a result, the movie barely registered at the box office.

Grayson's total screen time lasts about four minutes.  I happen to be very intrigued by her work in this, but it's really an item for Hall-o-holics only.

G.

2320
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Erica Fitz
« on: September 11, 2012, 02:15:38 AM »
How fascinating.  I kind of hope she never happens upon our boards, given some of the comments some of us have made over the years.

I almost want to write a tale now entitled, "There's something about Erica..."

Her presence on the series was much more vivid than that of Bobbi Jo.  She should certainly be invited to a DS fan event.  The Festivals appear to be dead in the water but perhaps some inventive fan will contact Erica and ask if she would like to come meet some fans at some point.

G.

2321
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Re: Vampirella crossover
« on: September 03, 2012, 07:55:17 PM »
I am glad that some fans are enjoying it, but I am even more glad that Julia isn't involved this time around.

From what I remember, there was a real Crystal Cabot who was one of the doxies in Collinsport in 1796.  Angie Baby shapeshifted as Crystal's corpse at one point.  I could have misunderstood however; it's been at least a decade, and maybe more like 15 years, since I last played that episode.

G.

2322
Ooh! new Grayson and Thayer David photos? now I'm curious.

G. (off to play in the remote countryside way off the grid for a week--see y'all on Labor Day!)

2323
Hey Bill, interesting post.  For many years I had always thought that RD did the voiceover for the Night of DS movie trailers.  Then one day I happened to be listening through headphones and doubt struck me.  I checked in here with THE authority on the two 1970s DS feature films, the Honorable Mr. Darren Gross, and he confirmed that in fact it WASN'T Davis doing the v/o in that.

On the other hand, Grayson Hall mentioned in a circa 1980 interview having recently done the v/o for a commercial advertising a compilation of "The Greatest Hits of Blue Oyster Cult."  To hear THAT, I'd crawl over broken glass in a darkened alleyway.  lol.  Just another obsessed fan--and, as is well known, bitchy queen.

G.

2324
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Is Angelique Mentally Ill?
« on: August 20, 2012, 06:55:19 PM »
Hey Brandon, great post.  I personally think Lara Parker's performance as Angelique had much more subtlety and psychological layering than any of the others I have seen.  In the case of Lysette Anthony, who I do think is a very accomplished actress, it seems obvious that she was hampered by the script and the direction, not to mention that awful accent somebody insisted she put on.  With the other two (can't recall who played Ange in the 04 pilot), the projects were much shorter and, particularly in the '04 pilot, there just wasn't enough time to allow Angelique to be presented as a fully fledged character.

One of the reasons why Leviathan is still one of my favorite storylines is that we get to see a mature Angelique reflecting on the events of the past.  In one episode, she tells Julia about finding "The View of South Wales" in a painting gallery in NYC when she was working as a model and how she would go and look at the painting and think about the past, all the madness, all the deaths... there's a sense of genuine regret in Parker's voice in how she plays this scene. 

One of my theories about Angelique in 1840 is that they felt it would be easier to write her as an out and out villain and so she did not have any memories or understanding of the events in her life in the 20th century.  It was a cop-out to make the task of writing the show a bit easier, in other words.

G.

2325
Calendar Events / Announcements '12 II / Jessica Chastain in Vanity Fair
« on: August 20, 2012, 06:46:37 PM »
I don't know if anyone cares at this point, but I noticed that Jessica Chastain--if I have her name right--the actress who played Carolyn in the '04 pilot, and who I don't remember at all from my one viewing of same--is on the cover of the latest issue of Vanity Fair as an exemplar of current cutting-edge fashion (again, if I am remembering correctly--my brain is in a sad state these days).

G.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 »