Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trask

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trask

    I was thinking that Gregory Trask is the OS most evil villain. He was a hypocrite, swinderler , murderer and theif. He knew he was evil but acted as if god was on his side. I was wondering who everyone elses fav villain to watch was. I always enjoyed Jerry's sneering down at everyone lol.

  • #2
    Barnabas was also a hypocrite. By far he's still one of my fave villains of the series. It's so hard to choose one with as many storylines as DS had but I think he has my vote, redeemed or not. :-p ~DJ

    Comment


    • #3
      Mr. Evil

      COUNT PETOFI

      Comment


      • #4
        Angelique was my absolute favorite villain and character.

        Comment


        • #5
          Gregory Trask was a great villian, 1897 seemed to have most of the great villians.

          Trask: Pretending to be a man of God; was out for himself and he didn't care about anyone, maybe just a little about his own daughter.

          Count Petofi: Fascinating character. Powerful, seemed to be self-power. "I have ony one God any his name is Petofi"

          Evan Hanley: Fun bad guy. why didn't he just take Trask out instead of allowing him to blackmail him into killing Minerva?

          Angelique: Worked with Barnabas this time - interesting idea, but was still out for herself.

          Aristede: Really fun to watch him interact with the other characters.

          Quentin: Willing to do what to took to help himself. Out for a good time. Womanizer, dabbler in black magic, Married Jenny, then ran off with Laura, left her to her fate in Egypt. Locked his own brother, Carl, in with a vampire.

          Fun timeline.

          Tori

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree, with all those great villains it's hard to have just one favorite. Petofi was always fun, taking wicked delight in messing with people's minds (and bodies!). Angelique grabs and holds the camera's attention every moment she's onscreen; and you're right, she never truly stops being essentially selfish. Even when she risks all to help Barnabas, it's because she wants him to love her for it. Everything she does, whether good or evil, always comes back to that.

            The original 1795 Trask is another classic - I don't see the different Trasks as identical at all. The original is psychotic, and he'll lie and cheat to achieve his goals, but he's sincere in those goals; he really does believe that Vicki is a witch. He proves this later when, as a ghost, he finally learns that Angelique was the real culprit, and immediately appears to warn Vicki - never stopping to think that his appearance will terrify her into hysterics! Gregory, by contrast, is a total sleazeball. I've never figured out: Does he really think God will be fooled by his hypocritical prayers? Or is he so self-deceiving that he actually can't see the evil of his own behavior? Lamar seemed that way, but then he wasn't really being that devious - if anything he was outrageously blatant in his hostility. "Good evening, Flora. You will pay for your godless defiance of morality! Is Gerard in?" Hard to misunderstand a guy like that!

            Comment


            • #7
              Jerry Lacey--and the writers--deserve credit for making Trask so different in all his incarnations.

              It is a tribute, imo, to Roy Thinnes that his take on Trask in the 1991 series actually seemed worse than Lacey's! His Trask seemed genuinely ill, someone who in the 20th century would have led a cult into mass suicide, after the police finally learned of all the underage girls he'd kidnapped as the chosen brides of God's prophet.

              Ick.

              Comment


              • #8
                I enjoyed watching the shifting characterizations on the OS so much, and zahir's praise of Jerry Lacey's three different Trasks is well-placed. I also liked the fact that Selby could make his 1847 Quentin a little drier, more the scientist and smart, sardonic man trapped in a bad marriage, whereas the 1897 Quentin was visually identical but discernibly more mischievous, more wreckless, more irresponsible, funnier--and with a melancholy at the core. Praise to the writers, too--never forget them! Nancy Barrett could make a different Carolyn (wearier, more unhappy) in parallel time than the one in the main storyline; Lara Parker did a fair job of differentiating the manner of Alexis from Angelique (were those the names in PT?); and Jonathan Frid's separation of pre-vampire Barnabas in 1791 from the vampire we'd gotten to know in the present was a treat. Then there were the actors who couldn't or weren't expected to differentiate very much at all--I thought poor Kathryn Leigh Scott felt trapped in the beleaguered ingenue roles and never had more fun than when she was touching on the golddigger cynicism and worldly sexuality of Kitty Soames--but soon she was right back in that portrait, swooning and sobbing for Barnabas . . .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Before Barnabas became more of an anti-hero he was a real b*stard. Really scary and a classic villain all the way...

                  "WILLIE!!! You BETRAYED ME!!" *THWACK!!!*

                  Quentin was also disturbingly scary at first. The evil smirk and silent freaky stare. His tormenting of David and Amy was eerie and disconcerting.

                  The Trasks were great villains, and I agree Wersgor, the 1795 Rev. Trask was psycho but actually believed in what he was saying. 1897 Trask was a hypocrite and sleaze. And Lamar was just a jerk. LOL!

                  Angelique was an incredible villain. She could be very frightening, heartless and evil. She treated poor Ben so horribly.

                  Petofi was truly awesome! He was very amusing and had a very nonchalant wickedness about him

                  And who can forget the charmingly evil Nicholas Blair?! He always had that wicked little grin on his face! I loved his interaction with Angelque.

                  Speaking of wicked grins, how about Jason McGuire "the smiling snake"?!
                  You just love to hate that guy!

                  I thought John Yaeger was a pretty cool bad guy too. Purely evil to the core. One of my favorite scenes in DS is when he viciously stabs Barnabas with his sword cane and Barnabas barely flinches. Yaeger, terrified, says "What are you?!" and Barnabas says, "You'll never find out..." then strangles Yaeger to death, and watches him turn back into Cyrus Longworth. I was like, "Yeah Barnabas!! Kill that jerk!"

                  PunkRockGirl
                  Last edited by punkrockgirl; 04-20-2004, 11:49 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ORWEN: Well, I certainly hope nobody's going to forget what a nasty old biddy Abigail Collins was! Why, to this DAY I still have nightmares about that dried up old prune! But what's even WORSE is waking up and realizing you have a sister living with you in your own cottage--who's just LIKE HER!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My favorite villian is of course Jerry Lacy as all the Trasks. I even liked him in non villianess role as butler Trasks waving about his kitchen's knifes.
                      The most dislike villian is Yaegar almost trying to kill Buffy.

                      Roy Thinnes, he was better playing cold gentleman Roger Collins than Rev Trasks. He was cruel enough but he lacked being holy in thou mission. He looked too much like a witch hunter of 1600s than 1790s.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Witches of Morva
                        ORWEN: Well, I certainly hope nobody's going to forget what a nasty old biddy Abigail Collins was! Why, to this DAY I still have nightmares about that dried up old prune! But what's even WORSE is waking up and realizing you have a sister living with you in your own cottage--who's just LIKE HER!!!
                        YES! Abigail Collins was rotten! *shiver*

                        PunkRockGirl

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's fun to remember the villains and the storylines and even the goof-ups in the OS (I've been doing so at length); but I still want to encourage us, in looking forward to the new series, to remember that we don't know if the new writers have even looked seriously at the OS--I'm guessing that their starting-point for the present-day characters and the 18th-century timeline will be the 1991 series; they may look back to the OS for the Quentin line IF the show happens AND IF it gets renewed, but until then they won't likely be operating from any of these memories, except for the 1991 Trask, Abigail, and Angelique. And, as we've noted on other threads, you can tell the story without Trask or Abigail.

                          But, who knows? Maybe Kelly and Sophia will be the swanky new villains . . . (hard to imagine, but we must loosen our assumptions--interesting to note how originally most of the villains were older characters, give or take Angelique and just about everybody Chris Pennock played; in 1991 a morally ambiguous Mggie Evans drove some die-hards nuts! But the layout of the villains may change.).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Michael Evenden
                            It's fun to remember the villains and the storylines and even the goof-ups in the OS (I've been doing so at length); but I still want to encourage us, in looking forward to the new series, to remember that we don't know if the new writers have even looked seriously at the OS--I'm guessing that their starting-point for the present-day characters and the 18th-century timeline will be the 1991 series; they may look back to the OS for the Quentin line IF the show happens AND IF it gets renewed, but until then they won't likely be operating from any of these memories, except for the 1991 Trask, Abigail, and Angelique. And, as we've noted on other threads, you can tell the story without Trask or Abigail.
                            I'm open to changes, but the core of the series must be the same otherwise its not truly Dark Shadows anymore. I suspect they will look at both the classic series and the '91 series, as well as the two feature films. Dan Curtis is an executive producer on the show, and while he might not be as heavily involved with the show as he was with all the previous incarnations, I'm sure he won't let them stray too far from the basic premise. And, yes, Trask is not essential to the central 1795 story (Barnabas/Angelique/Josette), but it would be sorely lacking without that character in it. After Angelique, he's the most prominent antagonist in that timeline and adds a great deal to the plotline. They should keep the psychotic witch-hunter in the story IMO. As for going younger with the characters, that's acceptable as long as they can play the characters well. I do think they went a bit young with Barnabas (even though he's quite...hot), but I'll wait and see. From what I've seen of the guy he can play the part. Personally, I'd LOVE to see Johnny Depp play Barnabas.

                            Oh more DS villains...

                            How about Eve?! She was so awful to Adam!

                            Gabriel Collins - what a snotty, snide wanker!

                            And Jeb - I hated him! Chris Pennock is really good at playing those thoroughly detestable characters!

                            PunkRockGirl
                            Last edited by punkrockgirl; 04-21-2004, 08:07 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You could be right, punkrockgirl, but if I'm reading the internal politics right, Dan Curtis is the reason they WON'T look at the OS in constructing the new DS--he's the one who preferred the movie and led the writers of the 1991 version to look to HODS rather than the OS for their model--that's why there are whole scenes and lines from HODS pracitcally quoted in 1991, whereas the characters who were only in the OS were the ones that got the most thorough makeovers, including Maggie Evans and Millicent and Ben and (IMO) Angelique, and the ones who were underdeveloped in HODS (Elizabeth, Roger) were either underdeveloped in 1991 as well (Elizabeth, Naomi) or also went off in new directions (Roger), leaving the OS construction of their characters behind in the distance. (There may even be copyright issues here, since Art Wallace constrructed many of the original characters and got credit for that, and, as far as I know, hasn't given them carte-blanche permission to recreate his characters--but I could be way off there.) So I could be wrong, but I think the new take will be even more distant from the OS, not in spite of DC but with his hearty encouragement. So we fans better get ready to let some beloved things go!

                              Hope we have a chance to see.

                              (I know the delight people get in hating Trask; for myself, I'd lose him just to avoid a storyline in which Victoria shrinks to pure victimhood--it pushes the helpless-damsel thing way too far for me ("but I'm NOT a wtich, I'm NOT a witch, why won't ANYONE BELIEVE me . . ." over and over again), and I think our sense of a heroine has changed over time to something less paralyzed; this storyline always seemed like gratuitous Vickie-torturing to me, toothsome as the villain was. JMO.)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎