Jump to content

Dark Shadows


DAMfan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 729
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

In A Way, my reading of it is that the Phoenix reincarnated in a different body but had the same soul who retained the memories of all her Lifetimes that was reactivated once her Mortal body was destroyed by a Fire

Please register in order to view this content

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's the way I've always understood it.  

I believe Laura married into the Collins family three different times.

In the 1897 storyline, we learned that Laura had originally married Jeremiah Collins in the 1780s or 1790s.  (Jeremiah was supposedly widowed by Laura Murdoch when he ultimately married Josette du Pres.)  Barnabas remembered Laura Collins well.  Barnabas said that he was a pre-teen (or a teenager) when Jeremiah married her, and Barnabas had a little crush on her.  Laura recalled Barnabas as the "sad-eyed little nephew" who followed Jeremiah around the Old House. 

By 1897, Laura had reappeared (after a 100 year hiatus) and was married to Edward Collins (but was more interested in Quentin Collins). 

Then in 1967, after another 100 year hiatus, she reappeared yet again and married Roger Collins.

So yes, I'd say Roger married his grandmother.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's another question about Laura: I've never watched the entirety of Laura's first on-screen visit in 1967. But what I have seen seems like a rather bare-bones storyline without a lot of details about the origin of the Phoenix creature. But her visit in 1897 is full of interesting details and possible back-story (although she still is not fully explained). So were the Egyptian elements of the plot in 1897 also part of Laura's 1967 visit? Or did the writers add the Egyptian stuff in 1897 to further flesh-out the Phoenix legend?

Edited by Neil Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When this storyline began in late 1966 and spread over into 1967, the show was not producing storylines that extensively used supernatural elements.   The Laura Collins storyline excited the show's viewers, and, by the time it had concluded and the vampire storyline was introduced, more supernatural elements were allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From what I understood the actress that played Laura would only play that character... so I'm guessing that when the show wanted to use the actress for the 1897 story.. they had to make her character Laura instead of a different character is my theory.

I think that in the 1967 story, that Laura had been reborn every 100 years or so and that there had been women named Laura recorded in past history that had burned in a fire.. but none of them  had married into the Collins family before Roger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you're right.   

In the original 1967 storyline, didn't the old caretaker at Eagle Hill Cemetery explain to us there had been a "Laura Stockbridge" who died by fire in 1767 and a Laura Radcliffe who died by fire in 1867, leading us to realize there would be a Laura Collins who died by fire in 1967?  (Or as the old caretaker said, "Diiiiied by fiiiirre!")

When they introduced the 1897 storyline and snagged Diana Millay again, they "retconned" the two previous incarnations of Laura into Mrs. Jeremiah Collins and Mrs. Edward Collins.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not sure if it's true or not but I think one site claimed Diana Millay asked the show to write her back in and Dan Curtis did (her marriage was ending around this time which might have been a factor in her wanting to go back), which might explain why her inclusion in the story felt somewhat pointless (beyond giving Angelique some cool material).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, they definitively played the OG Laura storyline with slightly more ambigious - obviously, once they introduced Barnabus they'd decided to go full-on supernatural (though arguably, even early on in that storyline they did keep some things a bit vague in case they needed to backtrack). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • This is 100% correct.  It was even on the nightly news where the US Government would not let the cast and crew travel to Egypt because it was deemed not safe.  The Achille Lauro hijacking took place on October 7, 1985, when the Italian ocean liner MS Achille Lauro was hijacked by four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel. The location shoot was probably scheduled to be filmed in mid-October to air throughout November with a two week tape to air date.  Remember on the show they did some in studio scenes doubling for Egypt before shifting the action to Arizona.  It was an awkward end to a truly bizarre storyline.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      New episode from late 1973 or early 1974!
    • Coronation Street had a very good story where one of the characters befriended a man who she later learned had been involved in her husband's death - when told right it can be very powerful (not like AMC trying to make it a romance). ATWT almost had a big fire in mid-1994, so this seemed to be a "thing" with P&G at the time. I guess it fits the disaster backstage atmosphere.
    •   @jmgaw did not refer to Luke and Laura. Throughout 78 GH's ratings continued to rise as AW's fell. That turnaround was getting a lot of attention in the soap press with Scotty/Laura, Rick/Leslie/Monica etc . So the 90 min decision was a reaction to that. I guess the thinking was that 60 min expansion had worked so starting AW a half hour before might keep viewers from switching to GH at 3pm. I don't think anybody really thought it would work. The most sensible solution would have been to expand The Doctors and hope for a GH like turnaround, but for reasons unknown TD never went to an hour.    
    • Like I said competing organization But this is not what I want to happen.
    • Hotel no doubt benefited from the Dynasty lead in and didn't move until it was jettisoned to Sat night wasteland to play out a final season. Maybe it should have been moved earlier to perhaps bolster another night and allow ABC to nurture another show in the post Dynasty timeslot when the former was still a ratings winner.  
    • Who is going to say, "I'm headed home to watch The Chew?!?!" One of the most ridiculous names ever. I didn't watch AMC or keep up with it towards the end, but OLTL still had life in it and could have gone on. OLTL 2.0 was entertaining and worked because RC was not involved. A real shame that did not work because I think the show could have gone in good directions. 
    • Another episode with Chandler uploaded.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I've always said that JFP's main problem is that she comes up with some shocking event and she plans around the event but she never thinks much about the emotional fallout for the characters or the fans. That's why so many of her stories don't work and damage her shows. I like your idea about Lando playing the person involved in hitting Maureen. It would have given Peter Simon something to do which is the feeble excuse they gave for killing Maureen off in the first place. Instead, they gave us the dreck they did.  And they were so obsessed with recreating the blackout week that they kept putting characters in fires and blizzards. None of which I saw, but going through the Logan columns I noticed: every few weeks, someone at GL would give an interview to Logan saying GL was going to get better because they had a great new storyline (A fire! A blizzard! A fire!) . Insanity.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy