I love the way this page worked out, though I really don't know if the series of screenshots at the top does much to improve it. Do we need the strip of shots at the top or can we delete them?--Kodia 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I rather like it (which is why I put it in). To me, it provides an immediate sequential demonstration of the stretch of time over which Nick has been active. The pictures set beside each of the episodes do relate to the period (except for the two where LaCroix is talking to Nick in Dark Knight: The Second Chapter); but they show different people engaged in different activities, often with an emphasis on showing a fair amount of the background, since the set was dressed or the location chosen to give a period feel.
- In the sequence at the top, though, we get a direct comparison of head shots. Of Nick, obviously, since he is the hero; but it could be a set of head shots of Janette, since her costume also changed quite a bit. Each head shot shows sufficient of what Nick is wearing to indicate a drastic alteration in clothing styles. They are arranged in order chronologically: medieval, Renaissance, Restoration, early twentieth century. Thus, before you even get into the long list of episodes (where changes are slower, since the list is longer), you have an immediate impression of history. -- Greer Watson 22:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- You know, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to do the introduction of the timeline with some text and then say "Hey, like this series of headshots of Nick." and then some more text. Would that work for you? It's a little jarring for me to see pictures that aren't really in context, get some description, have to look at them again, then have my eye fall down the page to where I stopped, and ... you see the problem? Too much jumping around for the reader and their eyes.--Kodia 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've just reworded the intro a bit. Does that help? -- Greer Watson 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it does, from a basic explanation standpoint. Thankyou.--Kodia 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The list is taken from the two sources cited in the external links section. Most of the time they agree. There are a few instances where I went with one rather than the other, and one case where I did something different. Should I do a discussion here of the reason for my decisions? -- Greer Watson 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that would be really useful.--Kodia 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Dating the Timeline[]
In most cases the two sources that I used agree on dates and places. However, there are a few instances where they do not (and one where I disagree with both). These are my reasons for my decisions:
- "Dead Issue": Neither source is more precise about the date than 1490-1516. However, the painter can be identified as Bosch from the fact that he is working on "Garden of Earthly Delights". A little googling gave me the date when the painting was done.
- "Blood Money": One source dates this to 1620-1640, the other to 1790. I decided to go with the costume: the clothes Nick is wearing would have been totally anachronistic at the later date.
- "Fatal Mistake": Again, one source dates this to 1660-70, the other to 1380-1391. The clothes are actually almost identical to the ones in "Blood Money", and consistent with the seventeenth century. Again, I went with the costume on the grounds that it's clothing, more than anything, that leaves an impression of period on the viewer. I'm quite prepared to believe the Costume Department could be off by a decade or two; I'm less sanguine about centuries.
- "Dying to Know You": One source says 1640-1690; the other is more precise, with 1649-1659. Both agree on the American colonies. The former gives this reason: "The location is only a guess; my best clue to time and place is Matthew's beliefs, Puritan or something very similar." Now, an examination of the other flashbacks shows that LaCroix's family were in France initially, then mainland Europe, but they had started travelling over the Channel by the early seventeenth century at the latest (mentioned in "Fever"). However, crossing the Atlantic would have been a serious endeavour at this time. Vachon, it must be remembered, did so while still mortal. Furthermore, there were plenty of Puritans in England at that time. Though not all people who supported the Parliamentarian cause were Puritan, a significant proportion of them were; and they certainly had an effect on the running of the Commonwealth (banning the celebration of Christmas, for example). So I suspect that the events in the flashback of "Dying to Know You" took place in England around that time. Where in England—well, that's another matter. East Anglia was a hotbed of Parliamentarian support; but there were certainly other areas of the country as well. As for LaCroix and Janette not being there: it is possible that, after the events of "Blood Money', they were sufficiently critical of Nick that he decided to travel apart from them for a while. It is not as though he'd started hunting a cure; so LaCroix might well not mind in the way he would later.
- "Last Act": One source gives the date as circa 1790s, the other as 1690s. I decided to go with the earlier date because, in the play they perform, Erica is acting in a breeches role. Though such remained popular for a long time, the real heyday was in the late seventeenth century. In fact, according to the article in Wikipedia: "Out of some 375 plays produced on the London stage between 1660 and 1700, it has been calculated that 89, nearly a quarter, contained one or more roles for actresses in male clothes (see Howe). Practically every Restoration actress appeared in trousers at some time, and breeches roles would even be inserted gratuitously in revivals of older plays."
- "The Code": Both sources agree that the flashback is set in the American West, but one says 1849 (probably Arizona), and the other says American Southwest, c. 1870-1880. Given settlement patterns, the latter date seems far more likely.
-- Greer Watson 10:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)