Weren't the Kent State shootings in 1970?

dom's comments always make me smile.  I think Sharon Smyth is a lovely adult, but Sarah really gets on my nerves.[spoiler]I also think certain developments involving Sarah's ghost show very sloppy work on the part of the writers:  Sarah was fond of Dr. Woodard but did nothing to prevent his death; she was very angry with Julia, but nevertheless finally appeared to Barnabas to stop him from killing Julia.[/spoiler]

Then again, some or all of it may have been dictated by D. C. and if anyone protested, you know what the response was:  "Are you writing the show, or not?  I can get lots of people who are interested in writing the show... you know."  *rolls eyes*

G.

Grayson was only in one scene in this episode.  It falls about 20 minutes into the show, if I recall aright.

My theory is that the episode was filmed in Fla. (the company apparently toured the US and different episodes were filmed on location, or so I have read) and GH did it there on her way home from Mexico.  Of course she could just have easily done it in LA which is actually closer to Puerto Vallarta as the crow flies.

G.

Yeah, well, where Dr. Who is concerned, I don't see the Russell Davies/Steve Moffatt et al 21st century reboot to be the same canon as the original 1963-1989 series. Obviously Auntie Beeb disagrees since they are about to roll out all the stops to celebrate the 50th "anniversary" of the founding of Who.  I haven't kept up with the 21st century stories but from what my friends report of various story developments & characterizations, I personally cannot regard it as canon.

There was an interesting event in fannish history when fans of the 1980s Ron Perlman series Beauty & the Beast rejected developments in the aired shows that were considered flatly unacceptable by fans.  Various fans rewrote the storyline to suit what they felt SHOULD have happened.  I don't know what the status of the various rewrites has been considered over the years, but I read an interesting article about the original rejection of this canon by the fans in a book on media fandom (an early one from around 1994).

In some ways a pivotal example in the DS 'verse is the Sam Hall TV guide article from '71 or '72.  For years I actually thought of this as canon.  Eventually I realized it was just Sam's thoughts about where the story could have gone had they gone on for another six months or so and wrapped up the "present day" storyline.  I have to confess I do personally think of the marriage of Barnabas and Julia as described in the article as "canon," but that's just my personal opinion, not something I would ever try to argue out with other fans.

G.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.