Khan

...And Omarosa, of course, WANTS to be Dominique. IMO, Bliss was the Amanda of the four Colby siblings, with Miles the (hetero) Steven, Monica the Fallon, and Jeff, essentially, the (non-villainous) Adam; and, just as with her DYNASTY counterpart, no one at THE COLBYS knew what to do with Bliss either.

Which makes Tiffany Krystina, Ivanka Fallon and Kushner Jeff? Yikes.

Why do people always assume marijuana use leads to "harder drugs" anyway? Where do they get their info? Yeah, Boehner was the one who said the ACA wasn't going anywhere. Of course, that shouldn't surprise anyone with a brain. JaneAusten and others here have been saying THAT all along.

You're probably right. IMO, it'd make little sense to include her in the new series (at least at the start), but I can't see the producers resisting the idea. Especially if the new series doesn't do well in the ratings. So, it isn't so much a question of IF Alexis would be included, but WHEN, and with which washed-up TV veteran playing her. (My money, believe it or not, is on Shannen Doherty. Provided, of course, she beats the cancer.)

That figures. Frankly, I'd have been more shocked to learn he was a KNOTS LANDING fan. So...Trump::Blake::Ivana::Alexis::Marla::Krystle? And IDK where the hell Melania would fit in that equation. She ain't no Krystle. That's for sure.

My favorite part of that triple cliffhanger is the moment when Alexis shows Blake the papers that proved she now owned his house, if only because of the one YT subscriber who said, "Did she just whip that out of her vagina?".

According to whom? If that's true, then the new series won't be too different from the original. Which is a shame. DYNASTY's original theme -- a working class girl struggling to fit in with her new husband's wealthy, dysfunctional family -- is a strong one that could yield tons of juicy story. IDK why they keep [!@#$%^&*] it up. And then, it was only out of necessity. Chances are, if Alexis isn't a part of this, neither will Dominique be. Dominique was created primarily to go head-to-head with Alexis (although I've also heard that it was Diahann Carroll who pitched to Aaron Spelling the idea of coming aboard as the First Black Bitch). Besides, I always saw Dominique as more novelty for that particular era than actual character, so I don't believe she would be as captivating in our post-Cookie universe. Now, if Dominique were changed in the new series to the First ASIAN Bitch....

Stephen Miller is a sad man, because he really believes in this "alt-right" garbage that he and others keep spewing. But Steve Bannon...? Well, Steve Bannon IS a repulsive s.o.b. No doubt about that. But the more I think about him, the more I think he doesn't believe even half of what he has said either on-record or off. In fact, I don't think Stephen K. Bannon believes in anything other than Stephen K. Bannon. To him, the only -ism that matters is opportunism; and right now, for whatever reason, he sees an opportunity in exploiting Trump Nation and its arrogant, ignorant leader.

I'd welcome it. I wouldn't have before, but now I do. And that's because Trump presents a clear and present danger to the safety of this country. A Pence administration would be hell for tremendous amounts of folks, but I think voting him out first chance we have and maybe correcting some of his b.s., while not guaranteed, is certainly doable.

Well, at least, Steven, in the reboot, isn't conflicted anymore about his sexuality. #smallcomfort

I honestly don't know what they were thinking with that back-from-the-dead story.

To be honest, I thought the Shapiros' original vision for DYNASTY (of the rich Carringtons versus the blue-collar Blaisdels) was fine. IMO, what let the show down during that first season was subpar writing mixed with some questionable casting choices. (Evans, Forsythe, PSM, Al Corley, Pamela Bellwood were all fine. Bo Hopkins, Katy Kurtzman and Dale Robertson? Not so much.) If I (reluctantly) were the one rebooting/reviving/reimagining DYNASTY, I would bear those two things in mind. Otherwise, I would adhere to the series' original, pre-Alexis themes, and maybe play up a certain rivalry between Fallon and Lindsay Blaisdel (who would, of course, be aged up to become Fallon's contemporary) in order to bring in the desired demographic.

I'm with Roxane. S&S never should have made a book deal with Borat in the first place. After all, there's a reason why "The Turner Diaries," for instance, has never been published by any major publishing firms.

Is that Martha Byrne as the younger daughter? Yes, Virginia, there really was a restaurant chain named Sambo's.

I can see it now... "And the Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie Special goes to...Melissa McCarthy (as Sean Spicer) in 'The Deplorables'!"

I understand what you're saying, AMS. Nevertheless, if it isn't a direct remake, and if it isn't influenced by the original series, then what the hell is it? And why bother calling it DYNASTY if you don't want it to evoke memories of the original (which you don't have, if you were too young before and have never seen any reruns)? Why not just give the characters new names that are unconnected to the original series, rename the series itself SAGA, and hope for the best?

Remember: the Shapiros and Aaron Spelling brought Alexis and JC aboard, because the show was in trouble. (At least, that's the version I've heard. For all I know, they probably had it in their minds to introduce Alexis all along.) If DYNASTY had been more successful during its first season, with the premise of the rich-and-powerful Carringtons contrasted with the working-class Blaisdels and Krystle caught in the middle, there's a good chance Alexis might have remained offscreen. So, unless a similar fate awaits the new series, I think we might be spared the war crime that will be Khloe Kardashian as the new Alexis Carrington Colby Dexter etc.

But how sad is it, AMS, that we're now in an era when rebooting/reviving/rewhatevering hit shows from decades past is considered the norm? Whatever happened to creating and developing GOOD and ORIGINAL ideas for series and not just piggybacking onto series that have already had their day? Moreover, it's one thing for a network like The CW to reboot or revive a teen- and young-adult-skewing series like 90210 or MELROSE PLACE...but DYNASTY? Who does The CW think the will appeal to? Not the youngins who comprise their target demographic; they probably have never heard of the original series. For that matter, their parents are probably too young to remember much about the original show either. Honestly, aside from gay men and Reagan-era nostalgia freaks, who even CARES about DYNASTY anymore, let alone wishes for some network to bring it back in some form?

Forget dramedy. In some ways, this is the most fascinating soap I've seen since KNOTS LANDING. All it needs, of course, are Donna Mills and her eye shadows.

Frankly, I wonder why they're reviving/rebooting the show at all. DYNASTY was a hit for one reason and one reason only: Joan Collins. The writing for the series was dreadful before they cast her; it wasn't much better once she WAS cast; and without her, the show probably wouldn't have lasted past season two. Ergo, there is no good reason (aside from simple laziness and the fact that we have a relic from that era now running the country) for anyone to bring back this POS. But I guess we should expect this from the Shapiros, who once had the audacity to compare this show to "I, Claudius."

You know, I'm still trying to piece together WHY Flynn would resign when this administration made clear a long time ago they don't give a flip what anyone has to say about their Russian connections. Why didn't they just do what they always do -- ignore, deflect, tell us that Hillary lost and to get over it, scream "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" -- and keep Flynn where he was?

This is why I don't buy that Trump encourages people to disagree with him or push back on his ideas. He might foster differences of opinion between others because, in his eyes, it's gamesmanship. But disagree with or openly criticize him, and he will make you disappear.

Yeah, I should enjoy THAT while I can, too. Now that TrumpCo. is about to kill net neutrality, who KNOWS what the hell will happen to the Internet?

You know, it really sucks to live in Oklahoma, because no matter how much you complain to the elected representatives -- the ones who are elected to represent our interests and act on our behalf -- you are smacked in the face with two, incontrovertible facts: 1) they never listen to their constituents, no matter what; and 2) they keep getting re-elected, no matter how hard a fight the opposing party (in our case, the Democrats) puts up. I like seeing all protest marches that have occurred here since Trump took office, but I also know it's all falling on deaf ears and closed minds and that Oklahomans, for one, essentially have no one -- not our governor, not our representatives at the state legislature or on Capitol Hill -- to really turn to. Furthermore, you get the feeling that Oklahomans aren't entirely set in their ways -- how else do you explain a Democrat such as Brad Henry winning the gubernatorial race once upon a time? -- and that not all our views on issues fall in line with the conservative agenda. But you also get the feeling that, when it comes time to vote, they just shrug and vote Republican anyway, for reasons I just don't understand. (Is it laziness? Is it ignorance (like, maybe they don't KNOW people like Jim Inhofe aren't running unopposed)? Is it both? Is it something else entirely? Who knows?) Anyways. Like I said, the CPB is probably dead, and so, too, is public television here in Oklahoma. There's no way our local PBS affiliates can survive without that grant money.

Unfortunately, I live in Oklahoma, whose representatives on Capitol Hill have shown not to give a [!@#$%^&*] about anything that isn't part of the oil industry. As much as I hate to admit it, I think the CPB and all the others on that list are as good as gone.