Dallas 2.0: Discussion Thread

[YRBB]

I don't mean in the sense that it's as awful a show/reboot/continuation as MP 2.0

Episode 2 just felt sooooo much like a MELROSE PLACE or SAVANNAH episode from the 90s.

4 episodes' worth of plot crammed into one hour, plot point after plot point, no time for characters, reflection, real conversations.

Yes, it respected and used both equally, although it did seem to recognize the power of very good female leads/characters.

You see, evolving and changing is great, I very much agree on that, but it's a problem when a characters evolves into utter boringness and fakeness. The Sue Ellen that we saw is more of a shallow girl-power representation than a character. Even the original DALLAS chose to ignore Sue Ellen's initially complicated and fascinating aspects, dreams and desires in favor of Linda Gray-ing the hell out of the character (presumably partly because Gray was so popular).

I still miss that multi-dimensional character we saw in the first few seasons of the show and can't understand where she's gone. No surprise DALLAS 2.0 brought back the watered-down version.

As for her getting involved in politics... An alcoholic, who spent time in a sanitarium, was involved in car crashes, had numerous (public) affairs, has been in jail a couple of times and all that is a credible candidate for Governor? Only on a soap.

[DRW50]

I think the material is there but I doubt anyone would want to write it. Oil companies were certainly in the spotlight in recent years, with the BP spill. What if they have some Melissa Agretti type character who claws her way through the family as revenge for her father becoming sick or dying because of a spill that the Ewings made sure they didn't pay any price for?

[EricMontreal22]

I *completely* agree here.

[EricMontreal22]

Gotcha. Well Cynthia did say that when she was hired by TNT they gave her largely carte blanche, but told her that she should view the pacing of the original Dallas and then act like she was doing four episodes in one--she even said in one interview (i paraphrase) that the only editing she was told was to make it much more fast paced.

Isn't the diagnosis really there just to instigate him wanting to sell the ranch?

[YRBB]

I wasn't aware of that! So the pacing, one of the most important aspects on a soap, was essentially destroyed by the executives. Nice.

Yes, the whole tumor thing is just plot, plot, plot. No substance.

[sheilaforever]

ITA.

I FLOVED the pilot episode. It was wonderful. The opening, the scheming, JR's evil smile.

[Soapsuds]

I guess exces think that viewers dont like slow pacing stories...the problem is they still do if they arent boring or make no sense...hopefully next season the pacing will slow down a bit.

[Chris B]

You don't need slow stories, there is a good balance. This was too fast and too plot driven and the stakes didn't feel high. Everybody kept acting like everything was so dramatic and important, but I didn't feel that. The characters were too bland and one-dimensional for me to care. And I do think 10 episodes is enough time to introduce the characters, major plot developments, big moments and a killer cliffhanger to kick off a longer second season.

Let's not forget that first season of Dallas only had 5 episodes! Knots Landing had 13. Look at those seasons and look at this. Tell me which did a better job of setting the characters and show up for the future. It's no contest. If this were a true season 15 airing say after the reunion movies or directly after the series, so far it would be considered one of the worst seasons. SInce it's new and fresh everyone is excited, but I can't wait to see opinion over time.

I still find so much potential, but they need a writing shake up badly.

[EricMontreal22]

Chris, while I largely totally agree with you, I do think you're somewhat unfairly jumping the gun by proclaiming it the worst season after two episodes--especially since the first episode seemed to want to try to bring in new viewers. I'm far from saying you won't be poven right, though.

[EricMontreal22]

Well that was the impression. It sounded like TNT's only real concern was that an 80s style paced soap wouldn't fly nowadays. While that seems to be the mentality of networks in general, many cable serials have proven that wrong. (BTW what are TNT's rules when it comes to explicitness? I heard one [!@#$%^&*] and one !@#$%^&*], but there was no nudity-- I assume it's the same rules that FX, etc, use?)

[DRW50]

FX has nudity.

[dragonflies]

The 2nd eppy was better than the first

[quartermainefan]

It aired a pilot and already it is the worst season ever, despite being #1 in its time slot and getting mostly good reviews it needs a complete writing overhaul, the show suffers from not being written like hourly unserialized dramas circa 1978, and has too much plot.

Do you think TNT is going to agree with any of these statements and is there any reason why they would?

[Chris B]

I think that so far it would be considered one of the worst seasons. I know that we have to see how it all maps out to fully judge, but even the later seasons of the original didn't have dialogue as poor as this, not to mention being so plot driven. Later season female characters like Michelle, Cally and April were never given a fair shot with fans because they were the next generation. People resented that they weren't Pam, Donna, Lucy and Sue Ellen. However, I do think those characters were very distinct and had personalities and were played by good actors. So far, I'm not seeing that, particularly with the new female characters.

I still have a watch and see mentality with it, but considering the entire season was filmed and written at once, we already know any concerns won't be addressed until season two at best.

[John]

I think if TNT keeps Dallas at 10-13 episodes a season, we could have a nice long run. I wish more network shows would only do 10-13 episodes a season. The 22 episodes on networks help make shows use filler