FrenchBug82

Or you retcon a convoluted story to introduce cousins and even make them entitled to shares at Ewings to establish them as part of the show only to drop them with an off-hand comment a year later and never mention them again

Yes. THAT would have been a fitting end. Pamela returns, reveals JR kept her away, JR loses Bobby for good because of it, gets thrown out of Southfork, Pamela joins forces with (insert list of enemies here) to kick JR out of Ewing Oil and he has now really lost everything. THEN it would make sense for him to be so despondent as to contemplate suicide. There is no way the likes of Cliff would ever make him feel defeated. Of course I'd expect Pam and Bobby to reunite but making the fact of their remarriage the thing that sticks it to JR would falling back into the bad habits of making Pamela JR's enemy through Bobby. I like the idea of her hitting him where it hurts: business.

Yeah I meant Tinsley of course. But here is the thing: they are all in denial. I mean, I find Ramona to be an absolute monster with not a shred of self-awareness and her behavior during the lockdown was a lot more shocking to me - and her unwillingness to acknowledge it - than anything Dorinda did. But I get that Dorinda might need a year or a few years off to cool down. But I am going to miss her. And I continue to think there is something we weren't told about Tinsley that explains D's behavior better than what we got.

I detest SH's politics but she was a fantastic actress and Donna a great character. I second everyone's take but I do know that her refusal to play certain stories because of private beliefs probably irked them and irks me. I respect someone's right to have opinions; not impose them on her character. If Dixie Carter can play an outspoken liberal, then Howard should have lived with whatever they wrote for her. But as for Donna's value, we go back to the show writers not understanding the concept of strong women beyond a few episodes and isolated moments. In the end, things must go back to the "right way" in which Ewing men dominate, Ray included. I know about how gay rights were seen in the 80s; it does not make it any less disgusting even "in context" (racism wasn't OK even when it was widespread either). And characterizing the show as "family-oriented" was hypocrisy of the highest order even at the times considering JR's behavior. So, you know, unsurprised and understanding of the context but still displeased by that anecdote. I will judge people harshly for bigotry, even when bigotry was widespread. One of my biggest irritation of the post-dream-season lack of cleanup was indeed Katherine just disappearing considering that if Bobby's death had been a dream, she was still around and not an outright murderer. I don't know if Lucy would have been my choice but that's the kind of story I had suggested earlier should have made up the final season. Instead of the random guest arc from Barbara Eden and *Michelle* taking over, they should have build up a season-long plot involving Lucy and others indeed and making JR's downfall at the hands of his enemies spectacular and involving tons of fun cameos. And we go back to our earlier conversation: the frame HAD to be a man vs a man. And JR vs a weaker enemy. They couldn't let Pamela headline the opposition to JR. And they couldn't give a space to the Wentworth where the Wentworth had an upper hand to play. They had to face on the field that JR could always win on: oil.

I miss Dorinda. And I maintain that everyone overreacted to her hostility towards Leah as much as she overreacted towards Leah.

Carly as a character works when she is not a Sonny/Jason underling. THAT has been my problem; not that she is an overbearing harpy because she has always been and that can be fun

I wanted to add some thoughts on Larry Hagman's role in all of this - whether his financial demands should indeed have been dialed down over time to help the show be better which was, after all, in his interest. But I wanted to balance that out with what I knew of his efforts to stand for his fellow actors during disputes and while researching the latter to give an example, I stumbled upon this tidbit I had never read. And now am so pissed. Not that the story was not told: it didn't sound like a good idea and the characters involved... who cares. But while I knew about Howard's right-wing Christian ideas, the entire business of BBG and Hagman nixing it to keep the show "family-oriented" just infuriates me. JR was boinking a new woman every week, none of which were his wife, but a lesbian character is where he drew the moral line? I know it was the 80s but that's really gross.

Me neither. Although, to be fair, I don't entirely buy the official version from Dallas folks either, which tracks a little too neatly with the good ol' diva-actress trope. As often in life, truth is grey and probably a mix of everyone being a bit right and a bit wrong and a comedy of errors. I imagine the dynamic as having gone something like this: VP demanded pay parity with PD, an eminently reasonable ask. However, she *expected* them to grant it to her - I mean, after the money they poured on Duffy to lure him back, she was surely as important to the show as he was AND she had been loyal. That was her mistake: a legitimately held view she did matter to the show mixed with what seems to be, from her multiple interviews, a very healthy ego. Let's not fool ourselves: she probably made it harder for them to yield to her by being a bit insufferable about her own importance. However, she faced producers who, as we said, saw the show as Ewing-men-centered, didn't really get her value, didn't get her character and probably didn't like her. No way were they going to grant her parity at all, because they didn't think she was worth it and, even if she was, no way were they going to be extorted by an actRESS like that (read between the lines: little lady needs to stay in her place) To hold their misguided position they resorted to a reasonable classic: they played chicken. And so did she but she probably grew pissed over time because not only were they not yielding to her reasonable demands but she probably saw their tactics and offers as belittling (which they surely were). So ego started to play into it. And she decided she was going to walk from that game of chicken. She was newly married, probably held the same delusions as so many before and after her about how her popularity would translate career-wise, reasoned to herself that Pamela had been poorly written anyway. But key was not just that they weren't given her pay parity but that the fact they were not considering it and playing chicken betrayed that they didn't think she mattered as much as Duffy had. Which was reasonably galling. Her quotes in the years thereafter - not least of which that "as far as I am concerned she is dead" do NOT read as she made a calm reasoned decision it was better to leave ahead of time and gave them time to prepare. It reads as: she is still pissed (understandably so) all these years later and a pissed exit is a last-minute exit.

I am surprised by this. Do we have a problem with KS? She does fine in my book. I am curious what you don't like in her portrayal.

That's one thing that I always thought made NY strong. The fact there was a core group of ladies with a lot of history with each other, including and especially pre-show and outside of the show. It is also the case with Gizelle and Karen: the best frenemies relationship are built out of knowing each other from before the show, even socially. They have each other's numbers Women who just met each other will fall out over the smallest dumbest stuff because they don't know each other. When the relationship is complicated BUT organic, it makes for a lot more compelling TV. Look at the interaction between Sonja and Ramona here. That kind of very biting shade/mockery but with some degree of affection and indulgence is not something you can replicate with an artificially constructed cast.

That's my issue with this entire storyline and Carly's family's pearl-clutching. HE IS A PROFESSIONAL KILLER. True, he didn't kill *Franco* but he has killed plenty fo people so 1) It is perfectly legitimate for ppl to believe he did 2) Even if he didn't, he does belong in jail for all these other crimes. So their self-righteous outrage just disgusts me. I wish they would spend more time exploring how her history of mourning might impact the bad choices she makes but I am actually not mad they show her still mourning Georgie, Nathan etc. Those kinds of big losses are so often memory-holed and I appreciate that Maxie carries that around with her even if it makes for dour viewing at times.

It looks very beautifully produced for what it's worth But it looks a lot more Apprentice-y to me than Housewives-y and while I don't expect it because it seems she'd prefer it be memory-holed, I would like to see her reference the fact she was once on the other side of this kind of "competition" (and while she did well, she was a mess!)

Exactly. I am sure that because this is pilot season many are auditioning and Days will be their fallback but why turn it down if they have nothing else lined up? The appeal of soaps for actors has always been that it is a good steady guaranteed gig. I don't see any of them turning the paycheck down if they have nothing else lined up just to make a point. What point would they be making anyway?

Obviously Dallas was JR and JR was Dallas. Sometimes for great, sometimes a bit too much. But the choice of writing the men as "the stars" of the show was not a natural occurence, the way the women on Knots Landing for instance stood out despite the fact the writing was initially balanced. It was an intentional choice on the part of the creators, based on their worldview, and they stubbornly clung to it when other possibilities arose and female actresses overshone some of the intended "stars". A good show runner has a vision and then adapts that vision for what organically comes up on-screen. In this case, they didn't and I think it was at least partially about sexism as it was about their ego-driven need to insist they are right. I think the show would have been better had they realized that Sue Ellen and Pamela, who both were a lot more interesting, layered and likeable characters than Bobby and Cliff, should have been JR's main adversaries and foils.

Yes. The actual pacing and the way the pieces in various storylines are moving together is actually classic soap and I have no objections. I am wary of whether the climax will be a letdown compared to my expectations - see the Peter wedding fallout - but my giddiness looking forward to it is exactly what they should want and we criticize them enough that I am happy to give them credit for that.

Problem is, for me, that we saw it coming what now feels so long ago that the set-up, which necessarily takes time for us to believe Nina/"Mike" as a couple and then get us invested in the final reveals, feels like it is taking foooooooorever even though technically they are pacing it the way it should be. I'd say the main mistake for me was to have telegraphed that Nina was going to meet Sonny two or three weeks before she did. Had it happened as a surprise we'd still be digesting the thought and building up excitement for the fallout and accepting that they do need to write the setup slowly. But we wasted some time and had plenty of time to digest it and now it already feels overlong (especially since the Sonny amnesia story itself *has* been overlong).

I suppose making no profit on a sure thing is better than taking a gamble on a new program that could be doing worse in the ratings and losing money, which is what partially happened to ABC after its soaps were cancelled.

Is there a good place, since that documentary is not close to being made :), for someone to read about Irna in more details, including some of the things you mention? I always learn bits and pieces on this forum and it sounds so fascinating but I could enjoy a more comprehensive story of hers.

Yes! That's a really key element I should have mentioned but YES. You are so right to bring it up. A HUGE problem with Dallas was that the people who created it and wrote it thought it was a show about the MEN and women characters functioned around them. That's how they missed how crucial Pamela was. I recently read a lengthy analysis of every season of Knots Landing and one KL writer explained that the season that was headwritten by a former Dallas writer (whose name escapes me) didn't work because he came in with the POV that Dallas was a show about men and he then struggled when trying to write Knots Landing where the female characters had already been established much stronger. But bringing it back to Dallas, that was the first time I realized that the writers were actually pretty open about that worldview and it was not just sexist subtext, which I had until then assumed. They really embraced it and wrote the show with that mindset. There were many sexist plot points that were easy to spot even at the time, but that also influenced bigger "strategic" calls: that's how we ended up with Pamela being written as a victim and then let go, Jenna being transparent as a character, Ellie being recast without second-thoughts, April defanged to get her man, Sue Ellen having none of the spirit and humor of LG, etc... Whether in writing or BTS decisions, it is clear sexism was at hand and it hurt the show. Everything we mentioned in this thread in the past few days can be traced back to that worldview of Dallas as a men's world.

April should have been written out after Bobby found out she had once slept with JR. News to writers: chemistry or not, if for a romance to work you need to change the characters involved - by turning April into a saint all of a sudden and making Bobby renege on his long-held and very solid principle of not hooking up where JR has been - then it should be a no-go, period. If they wanted a pseudo-replacement for Pamela they should have introduced a new character altogether - especially since investing in April ended up for naught when the actress got pregnant. April was fine for a while but what they did to pair her with Bobby was just bad writing. And ultimately I will say this: I think the problem was that Bobby wasn't a very good character and he wasn't easy to write something solid for. As Soaplovers said, it is JR vs Pamela that was the thoroughline of the show. Bobby was actually secondary to it. When she left it all fell on Bobby to balance JR and there were never enough layers to that character to make it work, no matter how charismatic Duffy was. That's why almost everything that involved him but not Pamela - when she was there and after she was gone - ended up a dud - from Jenna to April to other subplots. He just wasn't that interesting and while I would not have killed him off when Duffy wanted out in the first place, he wasn't worth the damage to the credibility to the show to bring back. Whatever they paid him should have gone to a raise to VP to keep her.

Recasting Ellie was a much bigger misstep than the misguided attempt at resurrecting a recast Jock - especially since it turned out he wasn't Jock on-screen so viewers did not know they had once wanted to go through with it.

There is some stuff for me to nitpick here: * The Wes Parmalee story was definitely a misfire but did it really matter in the scheme of things? Even in its best days, the show had its fair share of dud stories; Dallas for better or for worse wasn't a well-plotted show (much better than Dynasty, mind you). You tuned in because it had great characters. * Killing Bobby was the mistake. Boy, did Duffy f*** up there. But, yeah, the dream was... a bold choice. That I could have almost accepted if they had been coherent how they tied the loose ends. But it was a last minute bit of cleverness and they clearly hadn't thought the follow-up through. Any fan can list the long list of things that were left over from "before the dream" that it made no sense not to be addressed again if the dream season was a dream. * I personally think Kristin was a powerful character when she was on but her value would have dwindled over time and I am not upset she was written out. I do not agree she had years of stories in her although they could have kept her alive and sprung her for a surprise revenge later (typically the kind of character it would have been fun to bring back for the lead-up to a JR comeuppance finale). * I don't think Jenna was a well-written character but she provided a useful obstacle for Pam/Bobby and I was OK with that. And the minute you accept a different actress playing the same character, you have to suspend disbelief as to the inconsistencies with the earlier tale. It wasn't absurd to revisit it and it was quickly resolved so ... fine. Again, Dallas wasn't that good at plotting but the character interaction worked in the grand scheme of the Pam/Bobby story. * Lucy was useless from Day One.

I am half of mind to start a "soap plot points from the 80s-90s that wouldn't fly today" thread and yeah, that definitely would make the list.

I could be wrong but I seem to remember him saying somewhere that it was just a case of him regretting the initial story and wanting to undo it.

YOU are ready to hide? I actually like *Gizelle* so imagine what it's like for me. lol But the good thing about Potomac is that I am interested in all of them, even the ones that get on my nerves. I think Karen gets an easy ride from the fandom (her move out of Potomac *was* shady and she *was* lying) but she is a great TV character even though I would not want to have anything to do with her in real life.