Jump to content

Dallas 2.0: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

DYNASTY declined, because the constant push to best DALLAS and top their own "Moldavian Massacre" had resulted in a show that had become more OTT and ridiculous than the laws of human decency should have allowed. (DYNASTY always had been campy. After Moldavia, though, it just became downright bizarre.) And FALCON CREST declined, IMO, because the constant back-and-forth between Angela, Richard, and others over who controlled what was just too confusing. Conversely, although KNOTS wasn't exactly like it had been in seasons past, there still was enough about it that had remained recognizable and comfortable to viewers. IOW, KNOTS didn't really lose ground at that point, because they had remained somewhat consistent.

Same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Dynasty just lost any sense of believability or humanity in the characters. I read somewhere that the producers asked the actors to move as little as possible in scenes, to just be wooden, to put focus on the story only, not the performances. If that's true then it really did wreak some havoc, as the early seasons worked thanks to lively characters like Fallon. Just compare that to the loser Emma Samms played for most of her run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Although I don't necessarily want a reboot, I think Knots would be a lot easier to reboot than Dallas, even if it was filled with entirely new characters and the "younger" generation. I think what helped that show was that it was more about community and more of an ensemble than its sister show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Callie was just awful but luckly Sue Ellen was there to make fun of the whole marriage. Thats the only thing that kept me watching....The JR plots became insane and him being out smarted by Callie and James was just plain stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Frankly, I don't think so. Look, DALLAS is a soap, but it isn't a daytime soap. You couldn't bring Bobby back from the dead, or say Patrick Duffy is coming back as Bobby's long-lost twin brother, without it coming across as the most absurd plot twist ever (and contrary to what others might think, if they had tried either of those scenarios, DALLAS itself would have been gone in a year, tops). Nor could you pull a Ken Corday and just have him come on as a new, unrelated character, because viewers will want to know why these people are acting as if he doesn't resemble Bobby Ewing. I'm sorry that Duffy had to learn the hard way how much he needed DALLAS to keep working as an actor. Dwindling ratings or not, though, the show should have turned down Hagman's and others' suggestion to bring him back. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's because Hagman and Katzman refused to see the writing on the wall, so to speak, and give DALLAS a proper send-off. Did they know the ratings were in the toilet? Yes. However, even now, I recall reading SOD and Katzman referring to it as a season, rather than a series, finale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's Larry Hagman's influence for you. He really believed that viewers would accept J.R. remarrying a barefoot hillbilly bimbo such as Callie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
    • The other issue with Missy: in June 2020, she "liked" some social media posts by Candace Owens -- things Candace said that were against Black Lives Matter.  That is described here https://tvline.com/news/melissa-reeves-racism-days-of-our-lives-instagram-controversy-2894568/ I don't know if that was ever resolved.
    • She appeared onscreen not long after Rose Livingston and Sara Montaigne, and we found out that Sara was Rose's estranged daughter. I wonder whether Peggy might have been part of that family group -- or else they were just juggling a few different potential mysteries so that they could develop whatever seemed to be getting the best response from the audience. They didn't do anything much with Rose and Sara really either. Maybe Rose would have become more prominent if Rachel and Mac had split up over Mitch, or if Sara had really flourished. In some ways I can picture Cheryl being affected by MJ's prostitution similarly to how Josie was distressed by finding out about Sharlene. But I can also see that Josie as a Frame being involved with Matthew would have different stakes for Rachel and Sharlene than Cheryl being involved with Scott. I do think the solution for Cheryl would have had to be a badder boy than Scott -- either a real bad boy who would do her wrong, or the kind of bad boy (not Chad!!!) who is essentially misunderstood and other people just don't understand. Cheryl would also have been better off with some friends her own age. Matthew and Josie benefited a bit from having other teenagers to interact with.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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