I guess I'm in the minority, as I love that story. I know the continuity aspect makes no sense whatsoever (but neither do any of the other flashbacks, so who cares), but it's so well done and enjoyable.
I guess I'm in the minority, as I love that story. I know the continuity aspect makes no sense whatsoever (but neither do any of the other flashbacks, so who cares), but it's so well done and enjoyable.Also, it really does improve on the original run of 1795 episodes too - Barnabas' confrontation of Nathan in the Eagle is vastly superior, with far better performances - Frid in particular. Added to that the fun of revisiting the 1795 settings, and the shock - well, it was to me - return of Angelique (never a bad thing), and it's a great little diversion that doesn't outstay its welcome.
Carolyn Groves is just amazing as Vicki - she just hits the ground running, looks perfect and frankly is a better actress than Alexandra Moltke. This Vicki's vulnerable and scared, but she's no fool either.
The one 1796 flashback that I DIDN'T like at ALL was the one they used to get Barnabas from 1897 back to the present. Not only was this completely unnecessary, IMO, but it just retread ground that we'd seen twice already, and I think they were trying to capitalize on the success that they may have seen from the Barn-saving-Vicki flashback that they did before.I think they could've just had the Leviathans approach Barn in 1897 in the woods and just hold Kitty hostage instead of going through all that other crap. I found it utterly boring. Not to mention the fact that the set designers didn't do a particularly good job of making it look like 1796. The set, makeup, and basically the entire storyline, looked to me as if it was just thrown together in a half hour.Sloppy.
maybe the writers also thought it would have been a good idea to have her return to the original timeline that she came from. It wasn't really.