Primetime Soaps

[Khan]

I don't deny that, from the start, DYNASTY presented the Carringtons and their lifestyle as a sort of fantasy.  After all, theirs was a world that was completely foreign to Krystle, who, as the premise-embodying protagonist, served as a surrogate for the audience.  Therefore, it'd make sense for the Carringtons to be larger-than-life, if only to serve as a contrast to the Blaisdels, Walter Lankershim and the other, major characters.

As I tried to say in the DYNASTY thread, however, producing a series that aims to give its' viewers fantasy doesn't mean you have to check reality at the proverbial door.  You can create, develop, cast, produce and direct a series that provides style AND substance; and in its' first season, DYNASTY did that.

In the first season, you had the Carringtons' life and all the trappings that came with it, but you also had the grittier and relatively more down-to-earth world that the Blaisdels belonged to and that Krystle was emerging from; as well as the more nuanced characterizations in both worlds that, frankly, presented a more honest picture of what it means to straddle the two yet never feeling entirely comfortable in either.

As I've said several times recently while rewatching the show on PlutoTV, the first season of DYNASTY had the makings of a solid show that still could have captured the zeitgeist.  However, all that potential was cut short, and then discarded, because the Shapiros' ambitions for their creation outsized their actual abilities as writers and producers.  They doubled down on fantasy, ignored the reality and, in the process, whether intentionally or not, they gave us quintessential camp.

True, but I think their first catfight carried more weight dramatically, because it was the only one that was properly motivated.  Alexis had caused Krystle's miscarriage and (temporary) infertility.  (She also inadvertently caused the brain damage that would result in Krystle leaving Denver and ending up in a coma, but that's another subject).  She had done everything she could to re-insert herself into Blake's and their children's lives: moving into her old art studio on the estate grounds, painting Blake's portrait, paying Sammy Jo to leave Steven, etc. 

What woman wouldn't feel as outraged by Alexis as Krystle felt?  What woman in that same situation wouldn't feel driven to rip Alexis a new one?  It all might have looked silly on-screen, but from a story standpoint, I totally get it.  (Of course, if I were the Shapiros or the Pollocks, I would have saved the catfight for the season finale, but that's just me.)

[j swift]

I wonder if certain soaps just fit better with the characteristic programming of certain networks.

For example, I can't imagine a family soap like Knots playing anywhere else than CBS.  The sexy young adults of Melrose Place feels programmed specifically for FOX at that time in history.  And the camp of Dynasty played into the rest of the escapist/bombastic shows on ABC in the mid-80s.

A show like Barringers or Titans didn't fit on NBC, regardless of their creative quality (or lack there of).

So, when we discuss Dynasty's foray into OOT storytelling, we need to think of the fact that it was on the same network as Hart to Hart.  And it found success at the same time of classic ABC sitcoms like Happy Days and Too Close for Comfort.

ITA, but it is the music, the male stuntmen, and the final shot around the room that makes it camp.

The earnest intent of showing Krystal's outrage coupled with Alexis laying on top of a vase of roses meant that nothing would be played seriously anymore. 

[kalbir]

I guess you could think of the primetime soaps in relation to the daytime soaps on their respective networks.

Dallas and Falcon Crest were family/business conflict-based shows, so structurally similar to the Bell shows.

Knots Landing was a community-based show, so structurally similar to the P&G shows.

Dynasty I don't think had much resemblance with any of the ABC big three structurally.

[Broderick]

I found a very detailed review of Dynasty by Mark Muro, published in late 1982 for the Boston Globe.  

While the review itself might be interesting in the Dynasty thread, here are a few quotes that are applicable here: 

"For one thing, there are the characters.  Stereotypes all, you snicker at the professional half-conviction with which they are played."  

"With her tart's sultriness and English accent (which sounds fake, even though she really is British), Alexis personifies all that is Dynasty.  So no one's confused, good Krystle is a stereoscopic, white-gowned blonde in the Bo Derek Mode, while dark Alexis, who looks like a cut-rate Elizabeth Taylor, wears an astonishing wardrobe in, yup, black.  Because, you know, she's evil." 

"America is a nation of overkill.  We like things in extremes.  When we want money or power or sex, we want a LOT of it!" 

"We want the gutter or the penthouse.  Nothing in between.  If we can get the gutter and the penthouse in the same place, all the better!" 

"What distinguishes Dynasty is the scale, the pure brazenness of it all.  In keeping with the 'aesthetic of overkill', the plot is a perfectly realized hysteria of soap opera action."

"Always anxious to cooperate with our lust for quick gratification, Dynasty goes all the way on every date." 

"It's as if they jammed five segments of any other soap opera into each hour.  Bang, bang, bang:  kidnapping, bigamy, rape, financial ruin, death-bed marriages, adultery, lost sons, babies falling from the roof ...Dynasty is both above, and below, criticism.  It's that shameless."   

[I believe when you try to massively overdo a creative endeavor in order to achieve "instant gratification" -- such as packing 5 segments of melodramatic material into one hour of programming -- and when you try to slap the "gutter" AND the "penthouse" into the same storyline -- and when your British actress manages to sound like she's "faking" a British accent -- and when even the kindest critic describes your characters as "stereotypes all" -- it becomes very DIFFICULT to top the inherent comedy in such a bizarre mess of a show.  And that's why a deliberate comedy such as "Fresno" couldn't compete with this beloved disaster of a show.]   

[Khan]

Interesting point, @j swift.

By the mid-'80's, NBC had garnered a new reputation as a home for "quality television," thanks to shows like "Hill Street Blues" and "Cheers."  If there was going to be a successful primetime soap on NBC, therefore, it probably needed to do for the genre what HST did for cop shows, or "St. Elsewhere" did for medical ones.  "Berrenger's," "Bare Essence," "Emerald Point N.A.S.," even "Flamingo Road" - all those, and others, simply felt like more of the same.

In the latter part of the decade, however, ABC was also gaining a rep for doing quality shows that often redefined genres, like "The Wonder Years" and "Moonlighting."  DYNASTY had a target on its' back already, thanks to Brandon Stoddard's well-known distaste for Aaron Spelling's shows.  Ergo, if DYNASTY had any hopes of surviving into the '90's, it needed to evolve - not just better storytelling, with deeper characters, but also a whole new production aesthetic (less glam, more grit).  However, between ABC's eagerness to rebrand itself, years of mismanagement on the part of its' producers and general viewer fatigue, it was doomed to die with the Reagan era.

[kalbir]

Correction, Emerald Point N.A.S. was on CBS. In the NBC list you are missing The Yellow Rose.

Edited November 25, 2023 by kalbir

[Khan]

Ironically, Lee Rich and Philip Capice got their starts working for Benton & Bowles, an advertising company that counted P&G among its' clients; and Michael Filerman got HIS start, I think, working in CBS Daytime.  That probably explains why the Lorimar-produced soaps succeeded where others didn't, too.

Ah, thanks, @kalbir.

[Broderick]

And "thirtysomething", which started in 1987 (?) on ABC and was the antithesis of Dynasty -- a quiet story of middle-class (and sometimes bohemian) individuals dealing with everyday issues.  

[Khan]

"thirtysomething" was what David Jacobs always wanted KL to be, but couldn't pull off.  His writing wasn't that deep, and his cast wasn't that good.

[kalbir]

You're welcome Khan.

Are you referring to the early years, as in first three seasons?

Edited November 25, 2023 by kalbir

[Khan]

Yes.  At the outset, David Jacobs envisioned KL to be a sort of American version of Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a Marriage."  He also drew upon his own recent experience as story editor for "Family" - where, coincidentally, Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz had also cut their teeth - in developing the show.

[Broderick]

Another issue David Jacobs had (in my opinion) was his preconceived notion that everyone needed a spouse, due to his fascination with Scenes From a Marriage.  He initially populated his cul-de-sac with four married couples, and I don't believe he realized he was limiting his storyline possibilities at the starting gate. 

thirtysomething had a cast of 7 -- two married couples and three single individuals.  This enabled the show to contrast various everyday situations among marrieds and singles in a way Knots Landing couldn't.  thirtysomething might do an entire episode about Elliot and Nancy looking for a babysitter, while Gary has a one-night stand.  Or Hope might want Michael to pull-out prior to ejaculation, while Ellyn is trying to get a promotion at work.  (And the writers were clever enough to tie the various story threads together so that the entire cast was utilized in an ensemble manner, although the episode was focused primarily on one married couple or one single person.)

Obviously Knots Landing was the more successful show, running for 14 (?) seasons, while thirtysomething ran for only about 4 seasons, but 30-something showed that single people (and their angst) could be dealt with as effectively as married couples and THEIR angst, a thought which hadn't occurred, evidently, to David Jacobs when he was planning Knots Landing.  

[j swift]

I asked before, based on the idea that thirtysomething actually took over Dynasty's timeslot, if it was a soap, despite desperately trying to escape that moniker.

My argument would be that it fit many of the conventions.  It used melodrama to tell a story with an ensemble cast, told over time.  Like Dallas, there were weekly cliffhangers and season finales (although that became common in many other TV genres).  There were social issues, romance, and affairs.  Much like Knots, the moral center was always that family is the most important value.  And much like Dynasty, it went from realism to fantasy after the first season. The corporate stories with Miles were wild, and suddenly two guys from a small ad agency in Philadelphia were directing national commercials and walking the beaches of Malibu.

Edited November 25, 2023 by j swift

[Broderick]

I would say thirtysomething WAS a soap, much like The Paper Chase (arguably) was.  Those two shows featured self-contained episodes, of course, and they had perhaps a higher literary/symbolic quality than we normally associate with a soap opera, but obviously the fundamental storyline threads were never solved in a single episode.  If you got cancer, you didn't cured in a week.  If you weren't completely satisfied being a housewife, you still weren't completely satisfied with the situation at the end of the hour.  If you went out on your own and started a business, you struggled with it from then on.  

[Khan]

That's a very good point, @Broderick; and one, I believe, David Jacobs himself recognized when he introduced Abby in the second season.  I know Jacobs liked to say that Abby was in the works all along - just as he liked to tell people that he made Karen so aggressive in the pilot, because viewers would have been wondering who was going to be "the J.R." on the show - but I don't necessarily believe his claims, lol.  I think he saw that the intended "'Scenes from a Marriage x 4'" concept wasn't working, especially when half the cast simply wasn't up to the challenge, so he decided to bring on a single person - and a recently divorced mother, at that - in order to create more variety in the storylines.

I also think one major drawback in KL's initial premise and first season is that the four couples are more alike than they are not.  Gary/Val and Kenny/Ginger were ostensibly younger than Sid/Karen and Richard/Laura, but Jacobs and his team didn't make a big deal about that.  (For one thing, would the two younger, newly married couples feel all that comfortable hanging out all the time with the older ones?) Nor did they explore the inherent dramatic possibilities in what was probably an interfaith union between Jewish Richard and Irish Catholic/Protestant Laura.

I realize that one could push boundaries only so far on network television in 1979, but why not have an interracial couple living in the cul-de-sac?  Or (gulp) a same-sex couple?  The more varied the couplings, I think, the more interesting they could have been to people watching.