The Thurs @9 timeslot was a killer. The Colby's had already flopped there and there was no reason to think that Dynasty, at that stage, would do any better.

But there was really nowhere else to place it. Tues had thirtysomething, Wed China Beach which replaced Dynasty and was much more of the type of show ABC now wanted, Thurs @10 would have put it up against Knots Landing, Fr 20/20 and Sat was a no starter.

12 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

The Thurs @9 timeslot was a killer. The Colby's had already flopped there and there was no reason to think that Dynasty, at that stage, would do any better.

But there was really nowhere else to place it. Tues had thirtysomething, Wed China Beach which replaced Dynasty and was much more of the type of show ABC now wanted, Thurs @10 would have put it up against Knots Landing, Fr 20/20 and Sat was a no starter.

To be fair, I don't think they expected Dynasty to do well in the slot - usually when they move an aging show the hope is that it'll do well-enough to at least act as a band-aid while they focus on other time slots (as you said, China Beach and thirtysomething were clearly priorities for the "new era" ABC). In Dynasty's defence, it was usually the best rated show on ABC for that night, but of course that maybe just shows you what a trainwreck Thursdays were for them. If Knots hadn't been in the 10 PM slot on CBS they might've moved up Dynasty for another season if they could've gotten it for a low enough budget to attempt to make something work on that night. But obviously, they saw a few years earlier what happened to The Colby's when it and Knots went head-to-head.

13 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

But there was really nowhere else to place it. Tues had thirtysomething, Wed China Beach which replaced Dynasty and was much more of the type of show ABC now wanted, Thurs @10 would have put it up against Knots Landing, Fr 20/20 and Sat was a no starter.

I agree.  Even Mondays wouldn't have worked, because of "Monday Night Football."  ABC would have needed to push back DYNASTY to January; and in 1989, that kind of programming was unheard of on American TV.

59 minutes ago, te. said:

If Knots hadn't been in the 10 PM slot on CBS they might've moved up Dynasty for another season if they could've gotten it for a low enough budget to attempt to make something work on that night.

I have a feeling that if ABC had renewed DYNASTY for another season, the budget would have been slashed to ribbons.  Even fewer exterior scenes than there had been in S9, and probably more off-the-rack wardrobe, too.  (Bye-bye, Nolan Miller originals!)

Moreover, Linda Evans was already gone and Joan Collins had made it clear she would not be back.  John Forsythe probably would have returned, if only to maintain some continuity.  But the main cast would have been down to him, John James, Emma Samms, Gordon Thomson, Heather Locklear (because, after all, you need some "eye candy" for the men to look at, lol), Stephanie Beacham and Tracy Scoggins.  If the rumors about Diahann Carroll returning for S10 had been true, that would have made eight regular cast members.  Unless the plan was to lean heavily on recurring/supporting players who could be paid less, it would have been a very, very thin cast.

Edited November 27, 20232 yr by Khan

It's fun to imagine if they ever would've SORASed the kids, given their heavy involvement in S9

31 minutes ago, Khan said:

Moreover, Linda Evans was already gone and Joan Collins had made it clear she would not be back.

Eh, in the same tv guide interview where she announced she was leaving she also stated that she'd "do some episodes". It seems like a classic case of Joan playing word games plus not wanting to admit that they wouldn't pay for her to do the entire season.

On 11/27/2023 at 12:17 PM, te. said:

Eh, in the same tv guide interview where she announced she was leaving she also stated that she'd "do some episodes".

Well, that's important to know, because if I had been in David Paulsen's shoes, I would've negotiated some way for her to return - if not for the full season, then at least for part of it.

So what's the story behind James Farentino's departure from the show? Storyline dictated? The actor's decision?

13 minutes ago, SFK said:

So what's the story behind James Farentino's departure from the show? Storyline dictated? The actor's decision?

I've always assumed he signed on for a number of episodes, and when those episodes were done, so was he.

But I could be wrong, lol.

Personally, I don't think the show needed him.

Edited November 30, 20231 yr by Khan

34 minutes ago, Khan said:

I've always assumed he signed on for a number of episodes, and when those episodes were done, so was he.

But I could be wrong, lol.

Personally, I don't think the show needed him.

Yeah, I wondered if the primary focus on Alexis vs. Blake and Krystle after Cecil's death left little room for continuing Nick's involvement in the lives of the Carringtons. I also figured Alexis as chief antagonist deemed it unnecessary to continue with secondary leading male characters like Nick and Matthew to tangle with Blake. And admittedly, I was curious if there was any bts dirt that led to Farentino not being asked back.

They went back to the well a little too often, considering there was a middle-aged actor every season whose job it was to try to seduce Krystal away from Blake, including Matthew, Mark, Nick, and of course Daniel.

Speaking of which, was it just a coincidence that Sammy Jo named her son Danny, given that she later found out that her father was named Daniel? If not, it makes for a good trivia question.

 

The idea of Emma Samms being seen as "chubby" baffles me. I'd say these types of standards have changed for actresses today, but I'm not so sure.

Based on the comment above, I searched the Emma Samms version of the portrait. It looks like they literally cut out a picture of Emma Samm's head and stuck it in on Pamela Sue Martin's body.

Here are both portraits

And here's a comparison from the credits

Either someone stole Pamela's ruby, or they thought Emma needed a diamond upgrade

Apparently the dress really got around because Joan Collins also wore it for a press appearance.

Edited December 1, 20231 yr by j swift

Thanks. 

The portrait of Emma's Fallon is wilder than she was for most of her run.

Joan probably wore it best, although I'll always have a soft spot for Pamela.

@DRW50 I can't recall the scene that the original shot of the dress came from, can you?

It wasn't Blake's wedding, Fallon and Jeff's engagement party, or the opening of La Mirage.

On 11/29/2023 at 9:53 PM, SFK said:

Yeah, I wondered if the primary focus on Alexis vs. Blake and Krystle after Cecil's death left little room for continuing Nick's involvement in the lives of the Carringtons. I also figured Alexis as chief antagonist deemed it unnecessary to continue with secondary leading male characters like Nick and Matthew to tangle with Blake.

I agree.  It's also why I think later antagonists like Ben come off as tiresome and redundant, because Alexis is enough of an antagonist for Blake and Krystle without bringing on others.