Jump to content

Dynasty Discussion Thread


dm.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

:lol:

LOL, I was just honestly wondering about this Only Corley wasn't aristocratic enough. :mellow:

On the other hand, Oxenberg is a real princess, but she hasn't sided with the hostess/daughter of a dance teacher and an agent.

Edited by Sylph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You will indeed. You're gonna LOVE it.

Now, I didn't make the statement about Al Corley not being aristocratic, but I can see CarlID2's point, Corley was very plain spoken and didn't seem particularly interested in the world around him, so far as the interviews I've seen of him go.

Oxenberg's royal lineage is interesting, but I don't understand the jab at Collins being the daughter of a dance teacher and agent, both those things are perfectly respectable jobs and Collins has lived a very cosmopolitan life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, yes, precisely. Also Al Corley's name is many things, but aristocratic it is not. Perhaps the comment is directed to his looks?

As for Joan Collins, wouldn't you find it absolutely delightful if she were given life peerage? Joan Henrietta Collins, Baroness Collins? That would just be priceless!!

Edited by Sylph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Al was very good casting, looks wise, but he looked like John Forsythe's son and Forsythe looked like a good 'ol boy if there ever was one.

It would be priceless if she was Baroness Collins, but that's not going to happen (though she does have a friend in David Cameron). I think Joan Collins OBE would be just delighted if she finally managed to become Dame Joan Collins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh they dont. Ever. I am very much for the rich guy in the mansion isnt any btter than the homeless man just because hes in the mansion.

However... as a young gay boy growing up i wanted to be a prince, therefor Princess & Royality > The world (with the exception of Berry White & Oprah, of course).

Also, i see why you have such love for Joan Collins. She is simply divine.

Edited by JackPeyton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So Alexis, Blake & Dom just went to see his dad, whom is dying. Very touching scenes.

Question, did the audience know Emma Samms was Fallon?

And this Amanda/Dex/Alexis triangle is very dynamic. I really dont want it to end.

Adam ... or is it jeff? idk i cant tell them apart. There is an Adam isnt there? lol... annoys me, a lot. Not as much as krystal or claudia though.

Edited by JackPeyton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course it's not. And the Dame thing also, it seems very unlikely.

As for the "jab", it wasn't a jab. Those are perfectly respectable professions.

I'm conflicted, contradictory: yes, I'd like her to become a Baroness, but she doesn't look like a baroness to me. Nor does she look aristocratic. I'm not sure I can explain myself very well. She is perfect at playing rich and successful businesswomen, but not princesses, marchionesses/marquises, duchesses and that sort of thing. I just don't buy it. That's why the aristocratic comment struck me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I hated how they started repeating Fallon's stories with Amanda. Amanda and Dex screamed of what they did earlier with Mark Jennings.

They get involevd in a triangle with Clay Fallmont in season 6. I cant remember them having much to do with each other before this. Unfortunately Oxenberg doesnt get to finish it out as the recast Amanda was thrown in towards the end

What did you think of Kirby? I hated her character and she ranks up there as one of the more annoying characters

Edited by Cheap21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, being a Dame seems less than likely, I think Joan's OBE was recognition from the Conservative Party, a nod from HM, a wink from Prince Charles, it is enough for her. I think the aforementioned wanted it for her, wanted her to have something to show for a lifetime's service to British fabulosity.

No, she doesn't quite pull off an aristocratic role because she's too bold, too outspoken, too Hollywood and too much damn fun. She's exceptional at playing a self made woman because that is in her DNA. There's a sense of reserve in aristocratic people. Some call it snobbery, some call it dignity, other's don't know what to call it, but it's evident. Nan Kempner could have played a Duchess without even trying, it's just who she was. What's interesting is the number of aristocratic people Joan counts as friends. I'm sure they find her very amusing and very much unlike themselves.

I think it's worth pointing out that for all their aristocratic wealth and prestige, Princess Margaret, Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York, likely would have traded everything for the life Joan's lived. While their lives have been devoted, to one degree or another, to a sense of duty, Joan Collins has been able to live her life on her terms and with a duty only to herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Yes, I think that is the most likely situation.  TPTB were unhappy with the offer(s) they got from the tourism board in Finland, and decided the trip was going to be too expensive for P&G/NBC to finance alone.   I would also speculate a similar situation occurred a few years later with the planned location shoot in Egypt, which was also cancelled after the storyline had already started, and changed to Arizona.  
    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy