Jump to content


dragonflies

Dynasty: Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

Contrast that with cidre..who never watched the show nor wanted to listen to David Jacobs.

 

Probably because his ideas for the DALLAS revival were way better than hers.  (I still love his idea -- at least, I think it was his idea -- to have had John Ross be the 'Bobby' and Christopher the 'J.R.', rather than the other way around.)

Edited by Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

Probably because his ideas for the DALLAS revival were way better than hers.  (I still love his idea -- at least, I think it was his idea -- to have had John Ross be the 'Bobby' and Christopher the 'J.R.', rather than the other way around.)

 

Yup, that was his idea.

 

I read a review of season 1 of the original Dynasty.. where it was a story about the haves and the have nots.. but that the shift in season 2 to the Carringtons with only Claudia remaining was because viewers at the time wanted to see the wealth and prestige.. an escape from their middle class/working class life.  I actually think in 2017, viewers would be more open to seeing the middle class/working class element because right now.. most of the country hates the wealthy it seems.  Maybe have the Carringtons be the bad guys, the Colby's being the grey area type of characters since they newly became wealthy, and the Blaisdels being the working class/middle class section with Matthew's job providing insurance to help treat Claudia's mental illness.. and his company opting to cut insurance benefits for workers, etc.

 

And the new show runner in a recent interview said she was conflicted about the Matthew Blasidel twist because she liked the actor and how he interacted with Cristal, etc.  And that Esther had suggested the show focus more on the family aspect as opposed to the business aspect (probably recalling that she tried the business aspect in season 1 of the original show and it didn't go over well).  So the show runner decided to go this route because of that.

 

I do wonder how Claudia in this version will play out because she seems bat [!@#$%^&*] crazy already while in the original.. she had some semblance of sanity in the 1st season of the original show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hunk Chandler Massey said:

Jeff is black?:huh: They are saying there was an appearance by Alexis during the show. Huh?

It was in a little flashback clip to Fallon and Steven's childhood. It's a home movie where Steven is playing (the old Dynasty theme on) the piano and then Fallon jumps in front of the camera to get attention. There's a mirror behind so you can see the reflection of a woman wearing a big hat and sunglasses who I'd presume to be Alexis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the showrunners confirmed that was Alexis filming Steven and Fallon. It was a nice touch as were the other callbacks like the scene of Fallon playing pool, the wedding crasher and Fallon's dress for the wedding. I didn't LOVE it, but this left me wanting more. With soaps I always give them time to develop because in the 80s they always needed some time to find their footing. I feel like it's usually the opposite these days with them starting hot and losing steam quickly. Hopefully Dynasty only continues to get better.

 

My biggest problem with this show was Cristel. The actress is such a lightweight compared to the other cast members. I enjoyed the way she was written, but the actress didn't convince me. I don't see any chemistry with Blake either. Steven and Fallon were both well cast and have good chemistry as brother and sister. I LOVED the new Michael. He was so sexy and I actually want him to stick around unlike the other one. Jeff was okay but I need to know more about the Colbys to care about him. I don't like that he's enemies with Blake and I don't like that only he and Monica are around. I need to see something else to care about them. At least so far they did a horrible job setting them up, but there is still time. Sammy Jo is a lot of fun and Alan Dale is a delight as Joseph (I refuse to call him Anders).

 

All in all it was decent enough to keep me tuned in for now. We will see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so Monica's in it?  That's interesting, as Jeff's sister or cousin?  Any mention of Cecil/Jason/Philip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 12:50 PM, Elsa said:

It was horrible. For a show called Dynasty, something we have been waiting for decades. If it was presented as a new version of Titans it might be ok.

No style, so substance, no drama, no emotion, no conflict, no surprise. 

The thing I hated most was this harmless version of Steven, which belongs to a play from the 60s. Always holding a drink, talking about Fallon's hair or helping her with it, always trying to be witty. One of the most fascinating characters in the original was Steven, a tortured soul, a sexual creature, adoring his sister, trying to prove himself to his father, trying to make it in a difficult working arena, always getting in trouble, missing his mother, being nice to Krystle, trying to hide his pain and his sensitivities. Someone I adored and someone I felt really close to me as a viewer. And we get this?

Fallon did nothing for me. Basic spoiled girl from a 2007 teen series.

Blake should be less horndog, more cruel businessman. His new bride Melania served no purpose. Not nice enough to root for her, not mean enough to hate her. Just a woman for the catfight scenes, someone who has never watched Dynasty might this this is enough. And then we have the boring guy from Revenge and the primetime soap twink that gets to sleep with the rich son is back for another show. 

 

I don't feel that the new PTB ever watched the original. Just read a synopsis and watched some classic clips. Then they decided to bring the show to 2017 by making the new Mrs Carrington a Latina and make Fallon's love interests black. Plus a gay stereotype from a 60s play. How modern and open-minded are we? I don't get why this show had to be called Dynasty, just because of some similiarities in the structure. It might as well have been Another World with Mac, Raquel, Iris, gay Sandy, gay Jamie, and Steven with Alice instead of Matthew and Claudia.  

 

This is how the CW sees gay men. Riverdale took a gay male character who was friends with everyone, positive, kind (in the comics he even became a senator or President I think) and made him a generic bitchy queen who is only there to kiki with female pals and get on his knees for closet cases. 

 

The joke is that gay men are likely one of the main groups that would watch this, but they don't want us. And I sure don't want them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 7:43 AM, KMan101 said:

I think Elizabeth Hurley could work as Alexis but I agree that Alexis will forever be Joan's.

Well she's done wonder the Royals, but....NO. LOL.

On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 10:20 AM, UKBoi said:

There is no point trying to replicate the Joan Collins mould for this Alexis. If Cristal is now a latina, Jeff Colby is black and Sammy Jo is a MAN then why not put a new spin on the Alexis character. I think Melinda Clarke, who played Julie Cooper Nichol in The OC, could be great as a bitchy new Alexis, or Kelly Rutherford who could take the character in a total ice queen direction. At this point they have nothing left to lose.

 

I feel bad that it tanked in the ratings but they did this to themselves, there was no joy in the pilot, the way it was shot made it look really dull and lifeless when it should be glossy and glam looking. The wedding, for a billionaire and his new bride, looked cheap and dreary, and the inclusion of David Bowie in the soundtrack to make it "edgy" failed miserably. 

 

I do agree the characterisations of Fallon and Steven are very cliched (00s teen drama bitchy girl, 60s play harmless gay) and more work could have been done with them. I would have liked for the coin to be flipped where Steven is concerned. Why not take him down the road of a bisexual version of Ryan Phillipe's Cruel Intentions character, Sebastian? Rich playboy who flip flops between men and women all in a bid to get attention from his father, who still wont take him seriously? Blake pushes him away because he sees nothing but Alexis in his son with his manipulations and trouble making. As for Fallon, they've got something right with her wanting Blake to take her seriously and treat her as an equal, but why not use her as a perfect representation of how women are still fighting for equality with men, especially in Trump era 2017? Blake could be urging her to be the perfect pampered heiress doing fluff charity projects and having an Ivanka-esque powerless position within Carrington Atlantic (don't even get me started on the fact this doesnt nearly have the same ring as Denver Carrington) only for Fallon to oust her father from the company after a series of schemes to show her power and ability. She's your Tiffany Trump right there, not taken seriously by her father but this Fallon is determined to show him, and the world, that she's a force to be reckoned with.

 

The Cristal/Sammy Jo having secrets that threaten to expose Cristal's new wealthy lifestyle plot is something straight out of so many failed late 90s/early 00s primetime soaps. Why not choose to portray Cristal as an educated, successful in her own right businesswoman? Why does she need to be a gold digger from the wrong side of the tracks? Wouldn't it be more interesting if, in this version, Cristal was just as much an equal to Fallon and Alexis? Able to outmanoever them while still remaining kind and pure?

+ 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

This is how the CW sees gay men. Riverdale took a gay male character who was friends with everyone, positive, kind (in the comics he even became a senator or President I think) and made him a generic bitchy queen who is only there to kiki with female pals and get on his knees for closet cases. 

 

The joke is that gay men are likely one of the main groups that would watch this, but they don't want us. And I sure don't want them. 

 

 

They're even advertising the show on Grindr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 6:43 PM, ChitHappens said:

My feelings aren't mixed at all. This is going to be awful!  


I don't know if this is how you still feel or if you tuned in but I tried and because I watched the original to me it's a epic fail. I had to turn the show off.

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 6:56 PM, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

Can Hollywood leave classics alone? There are a plethora of writers (myself included) with original ideas that need to be greenlit. Stop rebooting sh-t. Jesus. 

 

Agreed and IMO it was awful. I couldn't bare to watch so I turned the channel.

Edited by YRestlessfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KMan101 said:

Why no to Hurley?

 

I ask the same question - I view Elizabeth Hurley as a successor to Joan's kind of celebrity and I'd accept her playing Alexis, at least to a certain extent, for a few reasons:

 

1. She is friends with Joan;

2. She is English;

3. She's demonstrated her capacity to play Alexis with her work on The Royals. 

 

That said, I do not think Hurley would want to play Alexis. She is savvy enough to know it's an impossible role to play and that it's Joan's iconic work. The criticism of Joan during the 1980s was that she was Alexis. It is that same criticism which makes Alexis impossible to be successfully recreated by another actress because no other actress is Joan.

 

If it ends up being Melinda Clarke, who played Julie Cooper-Nichol on The O.C., playing Alexis, then I would say that the Dynasty producers made the best choice they could while trying to allow another actress to put their own stamp on the character. Melinda is a good actress and she's worked with Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage in the past, so it's possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched it, and I enjoyed it. If you were coming into this expecting anything other than about 85% CW and 15% original Dynasty, then you were destined for disappointment from the very start. I truly hate the fact that "reboot" has become a catch-all term for any and every time an older series comes back. This is a reimagining - a remake with huge and deliberate differences in tone, mood, etc. They absolutely should have called it something else and gave the characters new names to avoid any comparisons to the original series, but it is what it is.

The pace was a lot more comfortable than I thought it would be, and I knew my girl Liz Gillies would deliver in the (lead?!) role of Fallon. In true CW fashion, she's the star of the show, and that's just one of those adjustments that, if you were expecting anything otherwise, then this probably just isn't for you.

The one and only "Why is it not like the original?" nitpick is the location. I'm pissed that we're missing out on what could have been some gorgeous Denver cinematography, and yes, "Denver Carrington" just has that ring to it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, All My Shadows said:

I just watched it, and I enjoyed it. If you were coming into this expecting anything other than about 85% CW and 15% original Dynasty, then you were destined for disappointment from the very start. I truly hate the fact that "reboot" has become a catch-all term for any and every time an older series comes back. This is a reimagining - a remake with huge and deliberate differences in tone, mood, etc. They absolutely should have called it something else and gave the characters new names to avoid any comparisons to the original series, but it is what it is.

The pace was a lot more comfortable than I thought it would be, and I knew my girl Liz Gillies would deliver in the (lead?!) role of Fallon. In true CW fashion, she's the star of the show, and that's just one of those adjustments that, if you were expecting anything otherwise, then this probably just isn't for you.

The one and only "Why is it not like the original?" nitpick is the location. I'm pissed that we're missing out on what could have been some gorgeous Denver cinematography, and yes, "Denver Carrington" just has that ring to it...

 

Yes. Thank you. I honestly can't take some complaints seriously if the viewer didn't even watch the episode or already hates it on principle no matter what. This was a CW soap from the very beginning, and in that context, they did it fairly well.

 

Also, let's please get rid of that myth that the ratings tanked. They did NOT. RIVERDALE, which is now considered a huge hit, started off with the same numbers and slipped MUCH lower in its first season. Again, these are CW ratings. The premiere was considered mediocre in terms of ratings.

Edited by YRBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DaytimeFan said:

 

I ask the same question - I view Elizabeth Hurley as a successor to Joan's kind of celebrity and I'd accept her playing Alexis, at least to a certain extent, for a few reasons:

 

1. She is friends with Joan;

2. She is English;

3. She's demonstrated her capacity to play Alexis with her work on The Royals. 

 

That said, I do not think Hurley would want to play Alexis. She is savvy enough to know it's an impossible role to play and that it's Joan's iconic work. The criticism of Joan during the 1980s was that she was Alexis. It is that same criticism which makes Alexis impossible to be successfully recreated by another actress because no other actress is Joan.

 

If it ends up being Melinda Clarke, who played Julie Cooper-Nichol on The O.C., playing Alexis, then I would say that the Dynasty producers made the best choice they could while trying to allow another actress to put their own stamp on the character. Melinda is a good actress and she's worked with Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage in the past, so it's possibility. 

 

I can agree with all of this. The above is why I thought Hurley is perfect but I can see why she wouldn't necessarily do it. Melinda Clarke could potentially work.

44 minutes ago, YRBB said:

 

Yes. Thank you. I honestly can't take some complaints seriously if the viewer didn't even watch the episode or already hates it on principle no matter what. This was a CW soap from the very beginning, and in that context, they did it fairly well.

 

Also, let's please get rid of that myth that the ratings tanked. They did NOT. RIVERDALE, which is now considered a huge hit, started off with the same numbers and slipped MUCH lower in its first season. Again, these are CW ratings. The premiere was considered mediocre in terms of ratings.

 

+1

 

I watched bits and pieces of it. I was having an issue with my DVR so I skipped around. I didn't hate it, I didn't LOVE it, it's fine for what it is I guess. I don't love they killed Matthew and we lost the Revenge hunk in the first episode. I don't necessarily love they have Claudia as batshit crazy but I lol'd at how campy it was storming out of the car as everyone gathered out front after the wedding and screamed about them killing her husband. Curious to see if Claudia is also not long for the show. I think they may be missing out if they discard Claudia the way Matthew was discarded. Especially considering the two actors playing them are fairly strong for a CW show.

 

I like the actress playing Fallon. There's potential there. I'm mixed on the actress playing Cristal and Cristal in general. I don't really hate her but can't really see myself rooting for her so to speak, at least right now. I think they can do better there. (And LMAO at the music used as Cristal pranced down the aisle)

 

I have no problems with making Sammy Jo a latino male and gay. The actor playing Steven isn't terrible but Steven is kind of boring and blah. I think there should be a bit more there, and I guess it could come over time. I don't expect or want a flaming stereotype, I sort of relate more to the less flamboyant depiction, but they don't have to make him so vanilla, lol.

 

I also don't mind them making Jeff and Monica black. I appreciate diversity but I think they cast someone pretty yet lacking in the Monica actress. I don't think the actor playing Jeff and the actress playing Fallon had any chemistry. Fallon had far more chemistry with Michael the driver (again, kudos for the diversity on the show).

 

I liked the nods to the original.

 

I get it's not for everyone and it seems a tad generic but it definitely fits the CW soap mold. Glossy with little substance. We'll see how it goes. I'll keep watching for now.

 

I haven't bothered with Riverdale yet but I might give it a shot.

Edited by KMan101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, YRestlessfan said:


I don't know if this is how you still feel or if you tuned in but I tried and because I watched the original to me it's a epic fail. I had to turn the show off.

 

Agreed and IMO it was awful. I couldn't bare to watch so I turned the channel.

 

The promo was embarrassing and cringe worthy. I'm not even mildly curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
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
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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...