Dynasty Discussion Thread

[Soapsuds]

Please register in order to view this content

[Soapsuds]

I noticed that on itunes they have Dynasty on HD. I really wonder if there's a difference from the DVD releases......

[Soapsuds]

Please register in order to view this content

[kalbir]

How does this board break down Dynasty's run? Mine is

Season 1: Slow start but it does build the foundation as far as character relationships go.

Season 2: Peak. Joan Collins arrives and Alexis is the breakout character that becomes a pop culture phenomenon. This season Dynasty becomes Dynasty as we know it and for me its the only season that works from a storytelling and acting standpoint.

Seasons 3-5: Height of popularity but weaknesses are showing. To me it seemed Aaron Spelling's entire goal was to be bigger and better than Dallas and storytelling logic and acting ability went out the window.

Season 6: Tanked in the aftermath of the Royal Wedding Shootout.

Season 7-9: Off the rails.

I'd rank the seasons as 2, 3, 4, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

I recognize Dynasty's place in television history as Aaron Spelling's biggest hit and as Joan Collins's career resurgence that became her career-defining role, plus the influence Dynasty had on the rest of the primetime soaps and on the daytime soaps. The funny thing is, I loved the peak years of Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place as a teen so I thought I would like Dynasty as an adult but on the whole I didn't like it very much. It must be an Aaron Spelling thing, that his shows are products of their time and haven't held up well (that's probably why I don't feel nostalgic for 90210/Melrose and long to rewatch them).

[Khan]

The only season of DYNASTY that ever meant anything at all to me was the first season.  The Shapiros' writing was shallow, but they had a great foundation that, with some tweaking, could have propelled the show for years.  In fact, I wager that Alexis wouldn't have been needed had the Shapiros done a better job of casting and writing for the Blaisdels.

[Broderick]

The 1st season was my favorite by far.  (Yes, it was a little slow & sluggish, and the ratings were generally poor; if they hadn't made some drastic changes, there likely wouldn't have been a season 3.)  

That said, the first season had a thoughtfulness and honesty about it.  Who'd have thought in 1981 we'd be seeing a weekly show with a sad-eyed, gay son, and an aggressive daughter who acts out because Daddy won't treat her like a "real man"?  Those were fairly new concepts for TV, and the scenes for the most part were played with love and sensitivity.  

I could tolerate Season 2, which was more-or-less an extension of Season 1, although the focus began to shift from two characters I really enjoyed (Steven & Fallon) to a character that I considered fairly cartoonish and ill-conceived (Alexis). 

By about the 5th Season, the camp factor had become so great the show was practically a self-parody.  

[Khan]

My issue with DYNASTY after its' first season is my same issue with THE DOCTORS during its' so-called "golden era" of the early 1970s: the Pollocks.  Their work on both shows has to be some of the most plot-driven writing I've ever witnessed.  In order for any of their stories to have worked, the "good" characters have to be completely blind to whatever the "bad" characters are doing to them; and most of the time on THE DOCTORS, characters they introduced or re-introduced would be so reprehensible.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Khan

[Khan]

For sure, a big problem with the first season was the writing for the Blaisdels, and for Lindsay Blaisdel in particular.  Bo Hopkins and Pamela Bellwood were good as Matthew and Claudia, respectively, but Katy Kurtzman was so woefully miscast as Lindsay.  A little of her brattiness went a very long way, lol.

If I had been Aaron Spelling or the Shapiros, I would have recast Lindsay with Heather Locklear; and rather than have her on as Krystal's socially grasping niece, I would have instead had Krystal and Lindsay forge a new, mother-and-daughter-like bond that would have placed Claudia's sanity and relationships with her family in jeopardy.

I also would have introduced a new character related to the Blaisdels - perhaps, Matthew's younger brother - who, in time, would have become Steven's on-again, off-again love interest.  Blake and Krystle would continue experiencing problems in their marriage, as Krystle struggles to adjust to her new lifestyle and to Blake's domineering nature, which manifests itself with Krystle's decision to go back to work at burgeoning Blaisdel Oil.  And stirring the pot in all this, of course, would be Fallon, who suggests to her daddy that Matthew, and not Blake, is the father of the baby that Krystle is carrying at the end of the season.

[Broderick]

Good point!  On very early Dynasty, the characters weren't (originally) essentially "good" or "bad".  Blake could be awfully nice, but he was also chauvinistic, intolerant, and expected conformity from his kids.  Krystal's motivations could be murky as well -- was she marrying Blake for love, or was she marrying him because he was richer than Matthew?  Steven was mostly sympathetic but could sometimes be a self-absorbed little brat.  Fallon was always bratty, but she had good reasons for it.  But there was never any question that Blake loved his children, and the kids loved each other deeply.   

As time went on, the "gray areas" inherent in that type of writing (and acting) went completely out the window. 

My big problem with the subsequent seasons -- beginning with about Season 4 -- was that it became a "Hollywood writer's idea of how poor people across America might visualize how rich people live".  Most of us on the board are probably friends or acquaintances of people who are very high-income individuals or members of extremely wealthy families.  Do they sit around all day drinking champagne and eating caviar?  Of course not.  They're at work!  Dynasty became an absurd fantasy in which everyone lolls around doing nothing except scheming and looking glamorous.

Obviously, there was a certain appeal to the show, as it became so synonymous with 1980s culture.  You can't discount that.  But the writing and acting ultimately were atrocious.  As someone said above, it doesn't hold up at all.    

[Khan]

Yeah, it's like watching Brenda Dickson's Jill Abbott on Y&R go to work at Jabot wearing glittering evening gowns, lol.

[j swift]

It held up well enough for them to re-use many of the best quotes in the re-boot, plus they "fixed" a lot of the anachronistic stuff

Please register in order to view this content

Shakespearian stuff right there

Edited May 15, 2023 by j swift

[Khan]

I thought the reboot was such a mess.  The team had an opportunity not just to update DYNASTY for the 21st century but also to deepen the characterizations and push for grittier, more meaningful storylines.  Instead, it was just more, high-gloss camp, only camp directed toward younger people.

[soapfave06]

I absolutely fell in love with Dynasty over the first two seasons but it was tired to me by the third season. It felt like a classic Hollywood movie with glamour and family drama amped up quite a bit. I haven’t watched in a while to give better detail but I was glued to my screen and it seemed to become plot driven overnight. 

[Broderick]

That type of writing -- "Glad to see your father had your teeth fixed, if not your tongue" -- was what characterized the first and second seasons, making them seem honest and clever.  

After it degenerated into "You'll pay for this, and that's a promise" -- (turns dramatically, flounces out) -- it was difficult to watch, unless you're a show-nuff fan of High Camp.  

Honestly, the last few seasons could've been written by Tommy Wiseau, for all the literary merit and cleverness they contained.  

[kalbir]

Dynasty was the epitome of Reagan-era excess and greed. It's quite telling that its run pretty much overlapped with the Reagan presidency. First episode January 12, 1981 was 8 days before Reagan took office and last episode May 11, 1989 was 111 days after Reagan left office.