Khan

No, I think the problem lay in the Pollocks' basic inability to create multi-dimensional characters. Abby Ewing (KNOTS LANDING) and Angela Channing (FALCON CREST) were fascinating antagonists, because their wants were tangible and relatable. Abby wanted to break free from middle-class mediocrity and compete in a man's world; Angela was determined to fulfill her grandfather's vision of making the winery the finest in Tuscany Valley. Even J.R. Ewing had a want - to best all his competitors and make his daddy's legacy his own - that lent itself to a variety of stories. But, as I've said before, all there really was to Alexis was her need to punish Blake, which gets old fast. (It's the same problem I had with the Pollock's work on THE DOCTORS. On both shows, the "good" characters were idiots, and the "bad" characters were bad "just because.") Plus, if I'm being totally honest, I don't think Alexis suffered all that much by being thrown out of the mansion. It's not as if Blake left her destitute, thereby forcing her to turn to prostitution on the streets of London or anything. Anders even mentions keeping up with all her exploits through the tabloids, which doesn't sound like suffering to me. And for all Alexis' talk about being denied the right to raise Fallon and Steven as their mother, I can't help but think back to what Jessica Tate told Corinne's real mom on an episode of "Soap": "All I know is that if anyone had taken my baby away from me, I would've moved heaven and earth to find her, and it wouldn't have taken twenty-three years!" If you truly cared about your kids' welfare, Alexis, why did you wait so damn long to come back into their lives? Why didn't you just tell Blake what he could do with all his threats and figure out some way to get them back, like Abby did when her ex-husband kidnapped Brian and Olivia on KNOTS? I think - and this is just what I think - we were supposed to root for Matthew Blaisdel (and for him and Krystle to be reunited) at the start. Blake, as originally envisioned, was a fabulously wealthy man who was also very ruthless and, at times, amoral. Matthew, on the other hand, was an anguished single dad, vying to make a name for himself in the cutthroat oil industry, while wrestling with his feelings for Krystle and his marital obligation to Claudia, who had returned from the sanitarium. On paper, it's a great contrast, and ideal fodder for storylines that could pit the two men against each other in various ways. However, what blew the whole thing was the casting. Bo Hopkins just does not work as a romantic lead.

All they had to say was that Dex died from the impact from the fall. That's it. Adding the twist that Alexis basically crushed him to death was unnecessary. If I had been Joan Collins, I would have protested: "Like hell you're gonna imply that my body weight killed him!" ICAM. Unfortunately, the only real motivation Alexis ever had was to get revenge on Blake. Which is fine, if the producers stick to their guns and write her off after four or six episodes (the actual number depending upon who you ask). But, they keep her on, which is a problem, because what do you do with her if she succeeds? What do you do with her if she doesn't? So, you keep pulling the proverbial rug out from under her, so she'll have to start all over again. It's so damn repetitive. Even Wile E. Coyote would say, "Girl, give it up!". Even Alexis' return seems pointless to me. She's back in Denver; she testifies against Blake at the trial; she moves into the cottage on his estate; she gets reacquainted with her children, who are, at best, feeling about weary toward her; she makes an enemy out of Krystle by causing the miscarriage; and she causes Anders and the rest of the staff to ally themselves with the new Mrs. Carrington (which, by the way, pretty much kills the show's original premise). She does all these things, stirs all these pots, but to what end? What is she hoping to achieve? Does she want Blake to take her back? Is she spying on the family on behalf of Blake's enemies or some tabloid for money? Is she dying of some disease and wants to make amends (but not before making Krystle's life hell just by sticking around)? What does the heffa want? It's as if they brought on Alexis just to goose the ratings and figured they'd come up with an actual game plan for her later. It's the same trick they also used on Dominique when she first appeared: "Who am I, you ask?" Yes, Dominique, that is what we are asking. Who the hell are you, and what the hell do you want?

I've often wondered if it was the other way around, with Y&R influencing DYNASTY, since Tom Trimble and Brock Broughton worked on both shows (and several other Aaron Spelling-produced shows, I think) as art director and set decorator, respectively.

I've seen "Monte Carlo" and "Sins," and for me, the problem with both miniseries is that Dame Joan is essentially playing Alexis again. Not that you would ever expect her to break out and portray a battered wife from the wrong side of the tracks, but I think most looked at "Monte Carlo" and "Sins" and asked, "Why should I watch these when I'm already getting the same thing every week on 'Dynasty'?" I know. And he was right to leave, too. I knew the reunion movie was going to blow mighty chunks when they had Krystle overhear one character tell another all about how Alexis and Dex went over the railing at the Carrington mansion and how she killed him when she turned in mid-air and landed on top of him. First of all, that didn't happen at the mansion; it happened at the Carlton. Second, writing out Dex that way was just crass, lol.

The truth is, I loved when Robert Calhoun was EP'ing GL as much as I loved everything else about GL from as far back as I can remember to '95, when I think the show really started falling apart. One reason for that is because GL always had, IMO, the best cast on daytime, second only to AMC's. Another reason is that you had a core group of writers - Nancy Curlee, Stephen Demorest, Trent Jones, N. Gail Lawrence, Pete T. Rich, Melissa Salmons, etc. - who were there throughout to maintain some consistency in the writing.

Exactly. Robert Calhoun was classy and elegant; Pamela K. Long was folksy and homespun. It doesn't mean one or the other was awful; it just means they were incompatible.

No, you're not. I loved Robert Calhoun's tenure on GL, too! For the first time since Gail Kobe, GL had an EP with vision. But he really wasn't a good match with Pam Long. P&G should have brought Douglas Marland back to GL so that he and Calhoun could work their magic again, but that would have meant jeopardizing ATWT's newfound success. It's to his credit, therefore, that he had the wisdom to promote Nancy Curlee to Co-HW, because I think that was just the jump-start that GL needed at that time.

Wait.... Sharon and Summer are fighting over Chance? Oh, good God.

Also - and I'm probably the only one who thinks this - but I think location had a lot to do with GL's struggles during that period. By 1987 or '88, production of the show had moved to EUE/Screen Gems - and I dunno, but to me, the energy on-screen was different there than it was at their old location in Chelsea (NYC). Of course, it doesn't help knowing that that's the same studio space where EON and SFT went to die, lol. I wish Robert Calhoun had moved onto AMC or OLTL. Both shows - especially OLTL - needed a strong EP at that point.

I guess that's why Robert Calhoun never cared for Pamela K. Long's writing, or why he favored Nancy Curlee over her. For all the good she did in stabilizing the show creatively after the free-fall of 1985 and '86, her work wasn't appealing to anyone outside of GL's hard-core audience. IIRC, only Peter Reckell was interested in returning full-time, so the writers used the "Cruise of Deception" storyline as a means of killing off Hope, so that Bo would be free to pursue new romantic partnerships in Salem. Anne Howard Bailey's only real success in daytime was as HW at GH from 1982-1985, but even that accomplishment is questionable when you consider how much control Gloria Monty had over the writing and the fact that GH was still such a juggernaut that it really didn't matter who was writing the show at that time or how good they were. And when you watch scenes from that period on YouTube...? Yeah, individual scenes might be pretty good, but the actual storylines stink; and if it grabs your interest at all, it's because Monty knew how to edit the shows enough to create the sense of excitement and action that she needed.

Watching DYNASTY today, it's apparent how much the Shapiros want to explore Steven's true sexuality (even if I don't think they were talented enough to do it right, even if they had had ABC's full blessing)...and it's apparent how they keep getting hamstrung in their efforts by a very skittish network (and at a time when "gay = AIDS" and vice versa). This, of course, begs the question: if ABC was reluctant to depict Steven honestly as a gay man, then why bother making him gay in the first place? For that matter, why even buy the show knowing who and what that character is supposed to be? It makes no sense. It also doesn't help that they replaced Al Corley, who clearly had no issues with "playing gay," with Jack Coleman, who clearly did. I mean, did Coleman not know about Steven's sexuality before he took the job? If he did, then why did he take it, when it was evident on-screen how much he preferred doing anything else? Again, it makes no sense. For all its' many faults, one thing that I think the reunion miniseries did right - or at least didn't eff up too much - was affirming Steven's status once and for all as a gay man, living happily with Bart Fallmont in D.C., and able to make some sort of peace with his father and himself. I'd much rather have watched that material and skipped Krystle being programmed to kill Blake, or Kirby falling back in love with the man who once raped her. You could make the argument (however strained) that Luke and Laura were a complex situation that played on many levels. But Blake/Krystle and Adam/Kirby? There's nothing ambiguous about those instances. Even if you looked at them through an '80's lens, when it was a "different time" and people held different attitudes than they do today, they're still pretty cut-and-dried.

Anne Howard Bailey was a dreadful writer.

I realize I'm in serious danger of losing my gay card for saying this, but...the more I watch (or, rather, re-watch) Alexis, the more she bugs the [!@#$%^&*] out of me. (This is not a knock against Dame Joan Collins, by the way. She's doing the best she can with this role. But...ugh, lol.)

That was always my number-one issue with DYNASTY: characters on that show almost always behaved in ways that defied logic or common sense. Your own niece conspires to have you locked up and have a lookalike take your place so she can get her hands on her inheritance, and you don't even give her a good thrashing after it's all done and over with? GMAFB.

And Alexis, in that ad, is looking at Rita, like, "That old gag!?," lol.

I know, lol. Actually, @Soapsuds, I think Joan Collins inadvertently handed the producers a gift when she refused to appear in the season premiere. I know that contract issues were resolved by the second episode, but if the producers had been smart(er), they could've stretched Alexis' disappearance a bit longer, really get viewers excited about seeing her again as Dex, Adam and Steven search for her in Moldavia. The producers could have capitalized on BTS events in a big way - but, of course, they didn't.

No.

Actually, @Franko, I think DALLAS copped out a bit with the "Who Shot J.R.?" reveal, too. Kristin was a poor choice of culprits, who never faced real consequences for shooting and almost killing her brother-in-law. That ad makes it look as if Rita, as Krystle, was attempting to seduce Blake, which I don't recall happening. (IIRC, Blake kept after "Krystle," but Rita, afraid of getting caught, kept putting him off through various means, including making him deathly ill, lol). But it's too bad I didn't write it, because if I had, I would've had Blake and Rita hit the sheets, then had Blake admit to Krystle down the road that he actually enjoyed making love to the woman he thought was her, lol!

It might have been the combination of those three factors that damaged GL in the mid- and late-'80's. Now, I'll admit that I'm in the minority when it comes to my opinion of that era; I loved watching every minute of it! But, I can see how someone who'd watched GL longer than I had at that point (for the record, I was born in '79) might feel resentful toward the show, because the Bauers had long been eclipsed by other families. As a matter of fact, I KNOW I would have felt the same as they did, lol.

Like @Gray Bunny said, it wasn't so much the massacre that caused the ratings to slide as it was its' aftermath, or lack thereof. Yes, Ali MacGraw was pretty awful as Lady Ashley, but by that point in DYNASTY's run, you, as a viewer, just accepted wooden acting from the cast as being par for the course. What WASN'T acceptable, however, was the producers' teasing the viewers at home with all that build-up over who might live and who might die, only to learn the next season that only two characters, both guest stars, didn't survive, even though the final shot (no pun intended) of the previous season was virtually the entire cast laying lifeless together in a heap at the front of the chapel. If you're going to end your season with a bunch of terrorists storming a wedding and gunning down all your principal cast members, you really need to make it count, lol. I think one online blogger said it best: the Krystle/Rita storyline might have worked if it hadn't run so long. The longer it went on, the dumber the other characters looked for not catching on. Believe it or not, though, the storyline was scheduled to run even longer, with Blake chasing Joel Abigore and Rita through the jungles of South America, or some such nonsense. However, when the ratings fell, the producers decided to wrap it up quicker than they had planned.

I agree. S1 isn't perfect. Listening to the dialogue is like listening to the worst of late-'70's TV drama; and even though I think the "rich vs. poor" concept with the Carringtons and Blaisdels, with Krystle as the central character uniting them, had "legs," I also think the Shapiros unintentionally sabotaged their own vision for the show with the poor casting and writing for the latter family - and for Lindsay, in particular. On the other hand, S1 offers characterizations and plotlines that are, IMO, more nuanced and real than everything that comes after (including Alexis). If ABC had exercised more patience with the show as it was, or was meant to be, I think, with some fine-tuning, DYNASTY might have shaped up into the kind of show that wouldn't have needed a Joan Collins in order to save it or keep it going. However, because DALLAS was such a massive hit, and because ABC (and Aaron Spelling) wanted very badly to copy that success, they chose to amp up the glamour and play down or do away with what actually worked - namely, the characters' moral complexities - never realizing that DALLAS was DALLAS because it offered both style AND substance.

I think the problem with Brad Hollister - aside from the fact that they absolutely cast the wrong actor for that role - was that he was too gray in his motivations. On paper and on-screen, Brad was supposed to be this opportunist who nevertheless had genuine feelings for Dee that, in time, would have redeemed him to the audience. However, from what I've seen, it's not entirely believable that Brad isn't anything but an amoral creep. IIRC, too, Brad finally bedded Dee, but sunk his chances with her for good when he admitted to why he had bought the silver mine that the Hugheses and Stewarts co-owned; then, he left town. To me, that's pretty much an admission on the part of TPTB that Brad was a very limited character who'd run his course.

I agree that the show's focus could be too narrow, especially in its' earliest years, but probably not in the same way you thought it was. For me, the issue had nothing to do with the setting, but more with the fact that Claire Labine and Paul Avila Mayer just seemed so reluctant to stretch the canvas even a little bit so that it didn't feel as if every Ryan sibling was always hooking up with another Coleridge sibling, and vice-versa. I mean, you expect every soap to be incestuous to some degree, but my God! That's why I welcomed new additions to the cast like Rae and Kim, Michael Pavel, the Kirklands, Bess and Maggie, the Greenbergs, even Joe and Max Dubujak; because, at the very least, their arrivals potentially meant new story opportunities for the core characters.

In a way, it probably was for the best that ABC didn't give her that schedule. As I've said elsewhere, LOVING was always mediocre to me. It's one thing to land a cushy time slot between two tentpole shows like AMC and OLTL. To keep the audience from tuning out when neither was on, however, you needed a show with good writing; and LOVING, IMO, never came close to being that. If anything, placing LOVING at 1:30 would have jeopardized OLTL; and as it was, even when OLTL was besting AMC and even GH in the ratings, ABC *still* regarded it as the proverbial red-headed stepchild. If I had had my druthers, AMC would have led off the day's lineup, followed by RH, OLTL, GH and finally, LOVING or another half-hour soap at 4/3c.

Now would be a good time to sneak (recast) Phillip back onto the show.