Dallas 2.0: Discussion Thread

I was just a child when Dallas originally aired, so while I watched it with my family, I don't have the same distinct memories of the show that some of you do. I absolutely love the reboot. I don't miss an episode. Yes, it's faster-paced than I'm used to with daytime, but the writing is good. There are a lot of twists that I didn't entirely see coming. I don't mind the brevity of Gary and Val's appearance - I don't want a whole show devoted to their backstory and their relationships. I don't care about Knots Landing - this is Dallas. I don't mind seeing very little of Lucy either. I got a bit bored with Ann and her whole trial, but I don't mind Emma.

Gary and Val were original Dallas characters, regardless of Knots Landing. The first full season of Dallas began by telling their story first. They are very important to the fabric of the show, especially when you consider Lucy was a main character for many years. Their return doesn't need a lot of backstory, that's just an excuse for bad writing. It's simple: Gary is JR and Bobby's brother, Valene is Gary's wife and Lucy is their child. The writers haven't done anything to develop Lucy and this was the perfect opportunity. Basically, this amounted to nothing. At least for Gary and Val, they at least set things up well, but there was no follow through. Their first scene should've been followed with the offscreen Gary/Val reunion and the Sue Ellen/Valene scene suggested an actual story. If they knew this was the only episode they were using Joan for, they should've used that time to put her in a scene with Lucy and/or Gary.

Gary and Val were original Dallas characters, regardless of Knots Landing. The first full season of Dallas began by telling their story first. They are very important to the fabric of the show, especially when you consider Lucy was a main character for many years. Their return doesn't need a lot of backstory, that's just an excuse for bad writing. It's simple: Gary is JR and Bobby's brother, Valene is Gary's wife and Lucy is their child. The writers haven't done anything to develop Lucy and this was the perfect opportunity. Basically, this amounted to nothing. At least for Gary and Val, they at least set things up well, but there was no follow through. Their first scene should've been followed with the offscreen Gary/Val reunion and the Sue Ellen/Valene scene suggested an actual story. If they knew this was the only episode they were using Joan for, they should've used that time to put her in a scene with Lucy and/or Gary.

I KNOW the backstory, that Lucy lived at Southfork as a teenager, etc., etc. But frankly, I don't care about watching Gary, Val and Lucy because 1. Joan Van Ark looks like a walking corpse and is painful to watch, and 2. She's had so damn much plastic surgery that it's not believable to anyone watching that Lucy is supposed to be her child. Charlene Tilton has aged like a normal woman, and seeing her next to JVA is ridiculous. Lucy's parents look more like her siblings.

I felt like more could have been done with Gary regarding the mineral rights, and maybe that will happen at some point. Lucy has been on before, and they haven't bothered to give her a storyline, so I'm not sure why her parents (who look more like her siblings) showing up would somehow translate to a storyline now. Honestly, Lucy is the only one I wouldn't mind seeing more of going forward.

Like a lot of young parents, the age difference between them and their children seems less and less as they all age, but accepting Val's appearance without factoring in cosmetic surgery is a leap.

I really do enjoy the show but it sometimes feels like the hour isn't quite enough, especially when you toss in a Gary/Val/Lucy when so much else is going on, or they want to devote such large chunks of story to Ann/Emma/Harris/Judith. They occupy any space the original series stars who are reduced to cameos might get.

I just can't get over them having Charlene Tilton appear for one line. She's a trooper. I have to go read that interview with her.

You can tell Charlene is pissed, but doesn't want to be too obvious because she wants to be invited back. However, if you're going to bring anybody back it needs to serve a purpose. Especially for people who have never seen the original. WIthin the context of this show you have no idea who Ray or Lucy are. You think Mandy and Cally were both former wives of JR and you have no idea they really existed on the original, etc. It's just bad writing to bring on characters in such a plot driven fashion and do nothing with them. Even the new characters Cidre creates are poorly developed.

I agree. How would new viewers even care about who those people are? I'm not saying I want everyone back leading storylines but the cameos and throwaway lines are more insulting than anything. It was why I thought they could have done much better with JR's farewell.

Lee Majors talks about how Larry Hagman got him the part on Dallas

http://www.accesshollywood.com/dallas-lee-majors-on-how-larry-hagman-helped-lead-him-to-guest-arc-as-sue-ellens-old-flame_article_77059

Now they are writing Afton as a troublemaker??...oye.....and when did Sue Ellen start hating Afton again...she treated Mandy better than Afton although we didnt get a scene...these writers suck.

Dear God, Joan Van Ark looks like a corpse. Stop with the plastic surgery already, and someone PLEASE put some color on that woman's lips.

JR was a bit of a man-slut himself, so I don't mind John Ross doing the same thing. John Ross is actually growing on me as this season progresses. Josh Henderson feels less awkward in the role to me, and seems to be stepping it up a bit. Jesse Metcalfe is still just horrible, and I cringe whenever he's on the screen. I actually like John Ross and Pamela as a couple, but seeing them roll around in bed while she's visibly pregnant with his cousin's twins would be awkward, so I understand why they're not really together at the moment.

Cliff letting the rig explode with his pregnant daughter on it felt over the top to me, even for him.

I was just a child when Dallas originally aired, so while I watched it with my family, I don't have the same distinct memories of the show that some of you do. I absolutely love the reboot. I don't miss an episode. Yes, it's faster-paced than I'm used to with daytime, but the writing is good. There are a lot of twists that I didn't entirely see coming. I don't mind the brevity of Gary and Val's appearance - I don't want a whole show devoted to their backstory and their relationships. I don't care about Knots Landing - this is Dallas. I don't mind seeing very little of Lucy either. I got a bit bored with Ann and her whole trial, but I don't mind Emma.

Oh, and I will add that I cried for most of the JR's Masterpiece episode. The moment the revised opening music started, I lost it. Sue Ellen was just brilliant. I still can't believe JR Ewing and Larry Hagman are really gone.

I KNOW the backstory, that Lucy lived at Southfork as a teenager, etc., etc. But frankly, I don't care about watching Gary, Val and Lucy because 1. Joan Van Ark looks like a walking corpse and is painful to watch, and 2. She's had so damn much plastic surgery that it's not believable to anyone watching that Lucy is supposed to be her child. Charlene Tilton has aged like a normal woman, and seeing her next to JVA is ridiculous. Lucy's parents look more like her siblings.

I felt like more could have been done with Gary regarding the mineral rights, and maybe that will happen at some point. Lucy has been on before, and they haven't bothered to give her a storyline, so I'm not sure why her parents (who look more like her siblings) showing up would somehow translate to a storyline now. Honestly, Lucy is the only one I wouldn't mind seeing more of going forward.

ellabelle, I am glad someone here has some sense!!

Like a lot of young parents, the age difference between them and their children seems less and less as they all age, but accepting Val's appearance without factoring in cosmetic surgery is a leap.

I really do enjoy the show but it sometimes feels like the hour isn't quite enough, especially when you toss in a Gary/Val/Lucy when so much else is going on, or they want to devote such large chunks of story to Ann/Emma/Harris/Judith. They occupy any space the original series stars who are reduced to cameos might get.

I think they need to give the show 20-25 episodes per season. The old series got away with the character driven stuff because they had more episodes and I think they had more programming time for each episode.

Dear Cynthia Cidre,

If you are reading this thread please know that you are doing a great job and most of these people have no idea what "contemporary" means if they fell over a 1000 page dictionary with "Contemporary" printed 40 times on each page along with the definition. If I were you I would ask TNT if you can have 20-25 episodes per season so we can have more of your great story and vision. If not, that is fine! I am enjoying Dallas 2.0 more than any TV series right now.

Sincerely,

Allmc2008

Definition of contemporary

adjective

• 1living or occurring at the same time:the event was recorded by a contemporary historian
• dating from the same time:this series of paintings is contemporary with other works in an early style
• 2belonging to or occurring in the present:the tension and complexities of our contemporary society
• following modern ideas in style or design:contemporary ceramics by leading potters

noun (plural contemporaries)

• a person or thing living or existing at the same time as another:he was a contemporary of Darwin
• a person of roughly the same age as another:my contemporaries at school

Clearly, you haven't watched British television. They "get away with" character driven storyline in series that have 6-10 episodes a year so that excuse is ridiculous.

ummmn...I'm not sure what the definition of "contemporary" has to do with the criticisms of Dallas. It's not an acting showcase by any means. But honestly, neither was the original. And I don't think it's too much to expect that if they bring back familiar characters, that they're written with consideration to their previous "life" or at least given more than a dayplayer's line or two in an episode.

If there's one piece of advice to be given, it's not to waste the goodwill Dallas has. I mean, just hearing the opening chords of the theme song puts a smile on my face. You can't buy that.

ummmn...I'm not sure what the definition of "contemporary" has to do with the criticisms of Dallas. It's not an acting showcase by any means. But honestly, neither was the original. And I don't think it's too much to expect that if they bring back familiar characters, that they're written with consideration to their previous "life" or at least given more than a dayplayer's line or two in an episode.

If there's one piece of advice to be given, it's not to waste the goodwill Dallas has. I mean, just hearing the opening chords of the theme song puts a smile on my face. You can't buy that.

Awww...PJ posted..long time no see PJ...nice to see you around....I feel the same way when I hear the opening credits.

I wonder if there is a chance in hell this will get another season? I really want it to, not because it's great, but it's decent. I'm interested enough to keep watching, even though I don't agree with all of the writing choices.

I wonder if there is a chance in hell this will get another season? I really want it to, not because it's great, but it's decent. I'm interested enough to keep watching, even though I don't agree with all of the writing choices.

The ratings have leveled off at 2.6 million viewers. If the show returns it will return in the summer. I dont see TNT airing it again during the fall or winter airings...too much competition....if 2 seasons is all we get it is better than I would have expected considering it was just a dream to see the show once again. If someone who knew the history of the show were writing the show it would increase in the ratings...where is David Paulson right now??

Edited March 29, 201312 yr by Soapsuds