Jump to content

Knots Landing


Sedrick

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I have to go on record as not being a fan of Meg (Sumner) McKenzie or Bobby and Betsy Gibson/Ewing (hmm what was their last name once everything shook out...?) 

It was unavoidable to have a younger next generation on the cul de sac. But if I wanted cute and spunky l'il kids, I'd turn on a sitcom.

It would have been cool if, maybe around 1990, the show did a time jump and the kids would be recast around 16 years old, and could take on more adult storylines. Mack, Karen, Gary and Val, of course, would be magically un-aged after the time jump and look just as fabulous as ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will differ on this one. I think kids are part of the fabric of any soap, but especially a show like Knots where it was centered around a cul-de-sac/neighborhood and around families and couples, some with kids. I think it adds to the texture when you just see them living life, growing up. The difference here is the schedule and arena. Knots (thus far) has given more attention to those kind of characters than most primetime soaps I know of ever did vs. the glamorous or simply adult leads, largely because it was baked in for the show from the pilot - Karen's children, Laura being a parent, etc. They're part of the package here unlike many primetime soaps, just like any more critic-palatable 'non-soap' network family drama of the last 30-40 years (Parenthood, Picket Fences, This is Us; take your choice).

OTOH, plenty of daytime soaps in the last 20 years have taken it way too far with the kids, partly I suspect because it's been alleged (and I believe it) that the networks, fearful of the perceived shrinking/conservative audience base for soaps, often will only rubber-stamp baby stories over anything too edgy. That's how you end up with shows like GH today or AMC 1.0 near the end, where there's a gaggle of children you can't remember the names of flocking around every young woman in sight who shouldn't have so many, and you just want them to stop shrieking and get out. (I'll never forget that endless sequence with Alicia Minshew and Sarah Glendening on AMC where their collected onscreen kids chased them around a set for two separate segments in a scene that did not seem scripted or controlled.) Ellen Wheeler's Mormon GL was the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't mind the pre-teens of the early years - the Avery boys and Brian Cunningham. They were mostly "seen but not heard". Jason was recast at least 3 times and no one cared

Please register in order to view this content

In the later years, the kids got more of a spotlight.  Meg in particular, IMO, was given too much focus. I found the Meg actor cutesy and performative, in quite a grating way.

= =

Vee, can't wait to hear your thoughts as the baby theft story kicks into gear. I am always haunted by the final scene of the Thanksgiving ep... so disturbing.

I know this never would have happened, because the show had left Dallas far behind,  but I would still have appreciated a Lucy appearance around this time. It feels like a plot hole for her to be absent where her mother is in such a crisis. I'm picturing Gary summoning her to support Val, around the time of the Thanksgiving ep, but things would backfire, because seeing Lucy only reminds Val of the trauma of JR stealing baby Lucy, and Val just spirals further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

On paper, I would agree that it's important for families to be seen and to continue on, and I even liked the twins well enough (even if they are very TV commercial-esque), but I'd agree with @yrfan1983 about Meg. The actress was...well she was a child actor, so you know how that usually goes, so I was just more bothered by how contrived and tedious the whole setup could be. I don't think Mack and Karen needed a child, I thought it just further brought out the sanctimonious and irritating roles (especially Mack) by that time. If the idea was just to keep Greg single and ready to mingle, I think it would have been better to just invent a relative of Laura's or send her to live with Richard. I also never, ever believed Laura would have wanted them raising her child. It overstated the Karen/Laura relationship quite a bit and ended up taking away her voice as a character even more than the show had already done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I like Olivia a lot, who's easily the most skilled of the younger set but was also a cute kid, and I've always liked Michael and Eric (and now feel guilty as they've grown into attractive young men). Jason the Immortal One never seems to grow at all but we rarely see him, lol. Brian I have no opinion on except for his being the bratty kid from Tremors and a few recent MST3K episodes who's okay enough, but I know he is replaced by David Silver very shortly so we'll see if he develops a personality.

That is a good idea. The absence is glaring, and I say that as someone who cannot tolerate Charlene Tilton for longer than ninety seconds at a time (which is three times as long as she can act on-camera). I understand why they divorced themselves more from Dallas, but I like the connective tissue to be used when it can. I did like when they addressed it in Season 5 where Val claims she and Lucy are doing great to try to lift Karen's spirits over Diana, then Karen asks how long it's been since they've talked and Val admits it's been nine months - that felt real. I look forward to the next and I assume last crossover episode, also the first in a long while, which will be next season for me.

I'm only up to ep 8, so I don't yet understand why Scott Easton, who I believe is supposed to be a lobbyist Abby secured from inside Sumner's campaign to further her interests there (which leads to a discussion of how Abby in early S6 has seemingly sublimated her aborted sexual relationship with Greg into power games of corporate dominance after having recommitted herself more honestly to Gary, but that's a topic for when I cover the last 10 or so eps), is clearly the man starting to mastermind the theft here. Why would a political lobbyist stick his neck out on what is essentially human trafficking for a business interest? He's not Wolfbridge. But obviously I don't know the full story yet (and there is a whole weird subplot with some murders or whatever that is beginning to build in an interesting way).

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Meg became outsized in importance because she was a source of conflict, both direct and underlying, for Greg, Karen and Mack.  And much like Michael on GH, it wore thin very quickly, and yet still went on and on.  And then the grandmother arrived to make another story about Meg.

I truly think what was missing was Lucy visiting at least one more time and just flat out deciding her parents and their life was just too boring for her, and telling them so.  Maybe almost hooking up with lets say Kenny and embarrassing Valene.  I also think it could have added some poignance for Gary and Val that their daughter was influenced more by JR than by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't recall all the details, but I think Scott Easton is just a stooge doing Paul Galveston's bidding, and Galveston has his own reasons for following up on Abby's wish that Gary's babies didn't exist. You'll see soon that Easton is considered easily expendable.

Edited by yrfan1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I recently saw a scene from Knots during the Lotus Point story and that set was beautiful. 

It was so cinematic that they could see into each other's offices from reception.  You could feel the presence of the southern California sun lighting the space, even though it was obviously shot on a sound stage.  It all felt real and luxurious.  At the time, a resort was in the news, as it was developed where Marineland once was in the wealthy enclave of Palos Verdes (funded by Lowes Resorts and developed by a man named York Long Point - Lowes/Point = Lotus Point).  Much like the Sumner Group replicated the new office buildings being built during the revitalization of downtown LA in the early 90s, I think Knots doesn't get enough credit for looking like it was specifically set in Los Angeles.

On the other hand, the clothes are bizarre by today's standards. Abby and Karen were wearing peak shoulders with layers upon layers of padding.  The scene I watched of Abby telling Karen that Gary had found Val, had Karen wearing a sweater with pads, under a jacket with pads, under a cape with pads, and her shoulders were propped up to her ears, while Abby was wearing the most intricate layering of eye shadows that one wondered how she made to the office on time. 

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

!!!! Accurate.

@victoria foxton @Soaplovers @yrfan1983 @DRW50 Yea, Paige was such a hard character for me to get into at the beginning of her run. And it wasn't just the coldness (for me), but attempting to force her in the Diana/Laura roles flopped hard with this superfan of both characters. Her character took me on a rollercoaster though one week I would like her and then hate her in the next. Her relationship with Anne does help making her more rootable. And throwing Abby in the mix helps you root for her to snag Greg. She has always reminded  me of Greenlee Smythe (AMC).

If there was one thing LML got right, it would be Paige. She understood Nicolette as an actress and how to highlight her strengths.

@Vee Ava was awesome and her interactions with Laura were fun if not, also short-lived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will have a lot to say about the first act of Season 6 soon enough, but I will say that the end of Episode 8 is a killer. Putting aside how hard it is to watch JVA in this material because everything is on her face, and Abby's genuinely sad and sympathetic reaction to the news about Val losing the babies in spite of everything (a moment virtually every other primetime soap I can recall would've played for camp bitchery), the final phone call from one of Easton/whoever's associates asking for 'the father's blood type' for 'the children in question' is so, so creepy. Donna Mills was so right to make them change the story and do it this way, and it still is just as effective and chilling if not far moreso, because Abby, who couldn't stomach Wolfbridge, would never have intended this either and has suddenly found herself trapped inside of this plot. The mounting confusion and then horror in Mills' eyes is just great, and it's through that that Abby can become an audience identification character in this story on a certain level, because they've been in on it for a few episodes ahead of her. The mindfuck on this reveal for a live audience back in the day must have been insane.

Also, Val's infamous creepy doctor looks a lot like Larry Drake a.k.a. Dr. Giggles.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Since I rewatched this episode a few days ago my question is what kind of horrible horror movie-like nightmare was Oliva having that Abby had to sleep in the same bed as her? I will pretend she was having some premonition about Val's baby's being stolen. And I love that the Cul- De- Sac is such a close place that Michael appears to know Gary's ranch house telephone number by heart.   

Edited by Spin865
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That actually goes way back to the beginning (though I'm sure you know this better than I); Olivia came onto the show plagued by nightmares and often would go to Abby (or when staying there, Val) upon waking. She kept having them for ages, although I was also a bit surprised that the Olivia who has noticeably physically matured since last season would crawl into bed with Abby again. I too thought it was a deliberate parallel and a suggestion of her having a premonition; I loved that moment.

The magic of the cul-de-sac and neighborhood arena for all the characters still hasn't faded - the Thanksgiving scenes in Episode 9 were wonderfully heartfelt and unforced. I'll try to cover as much of this stuff from the last 10 eps and the very end of Season 5 more as I can soon, though I've talked about a fair bit already. (It's notable that I believe Thanksgiving may have been Abby's first officially attended event in the cul-de-sac since Season 3 - she's stayed away years.)

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Which is why, as an aside, the final ever scene of the show never hit me like it did so many other fans. I get the full circle motif but Abby only briefly felt "of the cul-de-sac" so bringing her back there felt like contrived nostalgia for a specific short period of the show rather than a true bow that understood what made and tied those characters.

But ending a long running show is hard and it was a cute warm scene. Just I recall my Abby fandom not feeling sold on what they were going for, specifically for what Vee mentions hère.

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

    • 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.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
    • Good morning, boys!  I figured that it was time that our Gio was introduced into the hotness thread

      Please register in order to view this content

      @ranger1rg I even included a close up of his face for ya!
    • Under all of Madonna's social media today there is this wave of negative, toxic, absurd comments by Lady Gaga fans telling her how Gaga surpassed her in concert in Copacabana. I mean... Who the hell cares? Why are these fan communities so freaking toxic??? I'm sure Madonna doesn't care... But still. Have some respect for M. Leave her social media alone. Go cheer Gaga and be happy. Why come and spew hate on M??? Crazy world.
    • FYI, again, Ruth/Letitia is not in either of these 2 episodes. So that concludes the 4 episodes I had from Nov. 1983. I don't have the October episodes.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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