Jump to content

Dynasty: Discussion Thread


dragonflies

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 770
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Nicole Simpson was such a TRASH character with a TRASH story, it's impossible to tell if she could have done Fallon justice IF the writing was good.

 

 

Nobody said that. The consensus is that the writing for Fallon, for the most part, was bad. It was a whole different character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They should've kept Nicole until the massacre cliffhanger imho. She could've been desperately hanging onto Jeff and be fodder to add to the mediocre death count.

 

And before anyone says the obvious - how bizarre that they named her Nicole Simpsons. I mean the obvious connection.

Edited by te.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Fallon was only interesting in the first and last seasons so I tend to give Emma Samms a bit more credit than most. I wish the writing had stayed as in was in season one for her, but when Joan Collins joined they completely defanged her and turned her into a weepy heroine. At least Emma Samms was over the top and at times hilarious as Fallon, especially on The Colbys where I enjoyed her. Pamela Sue Martin completely gave up once the writing was gone, hence why she quit the show. One interesting thing is that she almost returned the final season but when David Paulsen met Emma Samms he thought she had so much more personality and spunk than what he saw on screen so he decided to give her another chance. I wonder how it would've been had Pamela Sue Martin returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you! PSM was overrated as Fallon and only worked in season 1. Her stuff in seasons 2-4 were cringeworthy bc they stopped having her be the bitch with Alexis around. Emma was great in season 9 when they started to actually write her with some fire and not generic heroine.

Edited by Cheap21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nicole was the one involved with Peter de Vilbis, no?

I agree that Fallon was boring after season one. I remember being so excited to see her and experience the character when I watched the show for the first time, but once Alexis came in, there was really nothing left for Fallon to do, which wasn't really a huge loss because the cattiness between Alexis and Krystle blew the doors off of the slight Krystle/Fallon feud. Which I know everyone likes to say they love "subtle" Dynasty, but let's be real here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Between Alexis, Krystle, Sammy Jo, and even Claudia and Kirby, Fallon was basically boxed in.  I'm just glad she wasn't as bland and inconsequential as Amanda.

 

IMO, the problem with the Krystle/Fallon feud was two-fold: 1) the writing didn't match the potential; and 2) Linda Evans was no match for Pamela Sue Martin.

 

Well, tbh, Linda Evans is no match for ANY actress.  She's gorgeous enough, but she's also very wan.  If there was any excitement at all to Alexis and Krystle's bitch-fests, it's because Joan Collins, while no master thespian herself, played to the back of the room.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You didnt like Amanda? I loved her as the ice cold bitch and I thought she was a good replacement for Fallon as she was better than Fallon seasons 2-4. The recast was awful but the original actress was great in the role

 

Please register in order to view this content

 

I loved her and didnt find her bland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

An online blogger said it best: the Shapiros created Amanda, so they could have a royal wedding.  That's pretty much the only function Amanda, a character who was generic even when she decided to be petulant, ever served on the show.

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

    • Thank you for the constructive suggestion. 
    • But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true.
    • This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame.  And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning.  Which is not a defense of bad storytelling.  But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed).
    • Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. 
    • Oh, really? I think we're really getting close.  What does "apparently" mean to you? To me, it means that this is something I think has happened but not something I absolutely positively know to have happened. When I use a word like "apparently" as I have here, I am doing so by intent. Can you think of a better way to communicate that?
    • Wow...I was not expecting a montage.   I know SilkPress did not!!! Poor Eva.  Lol. Funnily enough I missed that.     
    • For the record, VW thought having the twins at their ages was absurd & who wanted that story, was some group of fans, who wanted her & Carl to have a chance at having children together. Not any fans that I knew of, but supposedly they existed. 
    • Brandon Tartikoff saved NBC primetime. Brandon Stoddard got ABC Tuesday to rebound and put an end to the Aaron Spelling hit factory.
    • Awwwww Brad. I know I shouldn't, but I feel bad for him 

      Please register in order to view this content

      And yeah, agreed that Dante having animosity towards Gio is very forced and contrived. And it also has me concerned that it means the reveal won't be happening anytime soon.
    • God, I love that woman. Another amazing interview!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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