Original Series Oopsies

[michael cahalane]

the portrait of barnabas looks exactly like j.frid.and the picture of sarah in the book looks exactly like s.smyth.

[Wersgor]

True. However, the other portraits don't look like any of the actors. We're told numerous times that the portrait over the drawing room mantel is Jeremiah, but it looks nothing Like Anthony George. And there are brief glimpses of portraits in the album that are supposed to be Joshua and Naomi, and they don't resemble them either (because at the time no one knew they would ever appear as characters). Even the famous portrait of Josette looks, at best, only vaguely like Kathryn Leigh Scott...until they touch it up a bit years later.

While we're talking about bloopers, here's a subtle one: Joshua says that the secret panel in Josette's room was installed to allow for quick escape if needed "during the war". Yet the Revolutionary War ended more than a decade before 1795! No wonder he complained that the workmen were taking too long!

[zahir]

In the 1840 storyline, Julia gives a blood transfusion to Roxanne. Okay, leaving aside the raw luck of having compatible blood types--how did she do it? What did she use?

Oh, and how come so many Collins family members looked like Willie Loomis?

[ShardStar]

Maybe like the Haskell's and JEnnings the Loomis's are some distant cousin to the family? *shrug*

[michael cahalane]

not technically an "oopsie", but i think it's funny that women who lived in a remote fishing village in maine always had up-to-the-minute sixties fashions.did saks fifth avenue have a branch in collinsport?

[Michael Evenden]

Back to the issue of the portraits: Am I the only one hoping they DON'T make a big deal out of Barnabas's portrait and how he looks--gasp!--the same as his ancestor of the SAME NAME? I can't exactly trace this motif (there's a hint of it in the Hound of the Baskervilles, I think), but by now it seems to me hoary and obvious. I have no problem if Victoria and Barnabas uncover a portrait of the original B. and it feeds their fantasy of re-living a past love, but to have the thing hanging in the hall when Barnabas comes in seems to me almost comically over-the-top. (Plus the fact that in 1991 he was painted as if he were already a vampire--swirling cloak and thundrous black sky behind him, just about the last thing a period portrait artist would have created for the favored son of a zillionaire family . . . ).

I mean, I get the value of family portraits for a household haunted by ots heritage, but, as we've discussed already on this thread, it opens a lot of problems . . .For example, if we really believe the quasi-reincarnation theory of these stories, then wouldn't all the family portraits have to look like the same eight to ten people?

Fortunately, from the spoilers, it sounds like they've at least gotten beyond the portrait of Angelique (made sense in the OS when she married into the family--less so in '91 when an oil sketch of her appeared for no clear reason, except maybe that Angelique magically put it there . . . ), changing it to an amulet or some other artifact associated with her. Sounds smart to me.

[k. caorli]

I agree that perhaps they should make less of Barnabas portrait than in the past versions but the way they've set up the plot I don't think they can or will avoid it entirely.It was the main thing that quickly established who he was since he had no other legal credentials, though in this version he may need them fast since Roger is made to sound immediately suspicious of him, to a greater extent than before.Although he's the son of the builder of Collinwood, at least in the previous versions it could make sence that his portrait was prominently displayed.Conversely ,though he 'left' when still rather young, laeving no known descendents and never communicating with the family again.We and Joshua know why, of course, but no one else supposedly did, aside from Ben ,the ghost of Angelique,and in the old show Millicent [who was basicly off her rocker by the end of 1795-96 and said to have never recovered.]SO,THIS TIME MAYBE THEY AUGHT TO HAVE TO SEARCH A BIT TO FIND THE PORTRAIT AFTER BARNABAS ARRIVAL IN ORDER TO HELP PROOVE HE'S REALLY WHO HE CLAIMS TO BE. [But I doubt they'll handle it that way, if only because of D.S. tradition and that it might take less air time to do it the old way, though they could merely mention that it required a search to find the portrait.]The problem for me with the portraits was that they used the motif too often and as others have noted inconsistently.Portraits that should have looked like cast members didn't even though it could have been corrected in certain cases once the resemblence was established.That is especially true in the old show long before they thought of videos that could be watched repeatedly.In general it might be better to avoid exact resemblances save where the plot demands it.That way it is more remarkable when it does occur.I would try to use more logic to the physical likenesses than was often done previously and if the core cast play multiple roles more effort should go into making them look different beyond merely period costume and hairstyle.If nothing else things like hair color aught to differ and maybe eye color [contacts?] and for the woman possibly syle of make up. In rarer instances appliances could be used to alter features somewhat.I know it takes time and money but shows like Star Trek have to use makeup every week. Surely D.S. could manage for parts of a few episodes?I have my doubts that they'll bother to take such thought and care about it but I guess we'll see ,if it's picked up.

[JPHBK]

This show has so many goofs that me and my friend actually named them. We call them "Collinses" after the main family on the show.

If we see a goof up, we are both like, well he just "Collinsed".

Sounds funny I know, but when you say it, it just sticks.


I have watched this show straight through, at least three times, all 1245 episodes, so I have spotted several inconsistincies.