9 hours ago, te. said:

I mean, the reason why Emma acted the way she did was likely because she had some sort of developmental disorder, even if the show never went into specifics.

Indeed.

Which is the way it should be btw in my opinion. So many shows could avoid pitfalls by not naming the (mental) health issues they are trying to portray. By keeping it vague, you avoid misrepresenting the disease and/or offending people with clumsy writing and sending bad messages.
And you grant yourself the flexibility to dial it up and down depending on your story needs, which isn't very honest or realistic, but useful for writers.

On the downside, as I mentioned a few days ago, I think it was a lost opportunity not to have Angela's guilt and suffering at the way her daughters turn out be more of a thing. Would have humanized the character and JW could have played the hell out of it.
We only got a handful of scenes and some very vague subtext. I feel it should have been even more of a thoroughline for why Angela was the way she was.

Edited March 19, 20224 yr by FrenchBug82

38 minutes ago, FrenchBug82 said:

On the downside, as I mentioned a few days ago, I think it was a lost opportunity not to have Angela's guilt and suffering at the way her daughters turn out be more of a thing. Would have humanized the character and JW could have played the hell out of it.

We only got a handful of scenes and some very vague subtext. I feel it should have been even more of a thoroughline for why Angela was the way she was.

Considering the rather dark history at times about how we've treated people with some form of developmental disorders (just look at Rosemary Kennedy!) I'm sure there'd be a lot to unpack how Angela reacted to it and treated Emma - I always thought it was in the subtext that it was the reason why she being kept so sheltered. And yeah, Wyman would've sold the hell out of a storyline where Emma's justified anger over the treatment she'd suffered through the years was adressed.

I definitely think Angela treated Emma and Julia the way she did on purpose.  She sheltered and manipulated her daughters' lives for so long that when they turned out unable to cope with life, she could say, "See, I was right, I knew they couldn't cut it," when, in fact, they probably could've, had Angela been more of a mother to them, and less of a prison warden with a Dutch boy haircut.

3 minutes ago, Khan said:

I definitely think Angela treated Emma and Julia the way she did on purpose.  She sheltered and manipulated her daughters' lives for so long that when they turned out unable to cope with life, she could say, "See, I was right, I knew they couldn't cut it," when, in fact, they probably could've, had Angela been more of a mother to them, and less of a prison warden with a Dutch boy haircut.

6 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

So many shows could avoid pitfalls by not naming the (mental) health issues they are trying to portray. By keeping it vague, you avoid misrepresenting the disease and/or offending people with clumsy writing and sending bad messages.  And you grant yourself the flexibility to dial it up and down depending on your story needs, which isn't very honest or realistic, but useful for writers.
 

In the premiere season they seemed to be playing on the assumption that a traumatic incident occurred the night of Jason Gioberti's death which triggered Emma to regress and need protection by Angela and Chao-Li.  But, I believed that Emma had been more independent and higher functioning prior to Jason's death.

Then, in later seasons when Emma never "recovered", there seemed to be a switch where her character was portrayed as having more of a developmental syndrome that had been exacerbated by traumatic events.  Which explained why she never had children or sustained a romantic relationship with a partner who wasn't trying to use her for money or clout.

I’m now in season four. This is my new work from home binge and I’m having so much fun with it. Season four was the first full season I ever saw of Falcon Crest and I think it holds up well. First, you have a cliffhanger with real stakes. Several major characters died, Angela used it to try and make Chase seem responsible and it even tied into Julia’s death and later return. Dynasty and Dallas could’ve learned a lot about how to commit to a strong cliffhanger. 
 

This season is also the first with strong supporting characters with good actors and personalities. Lorraine is fantastic and should’ve remained long term for Lance. She also softens Richard which is nice. Terry is also a great supporting character and Greg Reardon is sexy and has chemistry with everyone. I also love Angela’s sister and wish Francesca had stuck around or visited again. Only strange thing is seeing her sleep with Richard knowing whats to come. 
 

I feel like whatever changes they made to the writing team worked. The show is soapier and moves faster, but still has the gothic elements we love. I feel like the dead weight and dull parts are gone as well. 
 

Also, rewatching the show, Emma is just a delight. I always wish we had more of her. Margaret Ladd is very underrated and did such a good job of keeping Emma from being a joke. I like that despite her issues and how people look at her, shes still portrayed as a smart woman. She is the heart of the show for sure. 

I'm watching the premiere episode of the 1986-1987 season.  Did they ever mention what happened to Greg and Jordan?

24 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

I'm watching the premiere episode of the 1986-1987 season.  Did they ever mention what happened to Greg and Jordan?

Greg and Jordan left FC. It's been a long time since i saw it on Soapnet. But he either called Angela. Or visited her. To tell her the news.

4 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

Greg and Jordan left FC. It's been a long time since i saw it on Soapnet. But he either called Angela. Or visited her. To tell her the news.

Oh ok...because they weren't injured in the earthquake and just vanished😂.

1 minute ago, Soapsuds said:

Oh ok...because they weren't injured in the earthquake and just vanished😂.

FC had a habit of killing off characters during their big season finale's.

1 minute ago, victoria foxton said:

FC had a habit of killing off characters during their big season finale's.

Emma's boyfriend was killed off and Terri.  Funny how nothing had fallen on Terri in the finale yet she had stuff all over her in the premiere. Its obviously not them instead of body doubles since their faces are never shown.

I still remember Terry's last words: "Richard?  Richard?  WHAT ABOUT ME!?"

What ABOUT you, Terry?  What, Richard's just supposed to forget about his defenseless, infant son and protect you instead?  Girl, bye!

Would I be wrong suggesting Falcon Crest had the highest main cast turnover of the primetime soaps? Or is it a function of it having been more generous with granting supporting actors a space in the main credits?
Every season it feels a good third of the cast lasted only one to two seasons at most.

13 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

Emma's boyfriend was killed off and Terri.  Funny how nothing had fallen on Terri in the finale yet she had stuff all over her in the premiere. Its obviously not them instead of body doubles since their faces are never shown.

Terri got a really hallow death. Even her funeral wasn't about her.

I would agree that there was a lot of turnover among FC's cast, with Jane Wyman, Lorenzo Lamas and David Selby (even though I don't think he was on the show until S2?) being the only real constants.