Jump to content

Dynasty: Discussion Thread


dragonflies

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 770
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

A lot of these shows, Riverdale for example, don't know what they want to be. They want the appeal of the source material that has a built in fanbase, but they want a teen show, but they want a mystery show ...

 

I'm mixed on this Dynasty update/remake. I'm open to it. I like the added diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't really see how making the Colbys black stops them from carrying out the Colby vs Carrington feud.

 

 

I have to wonder if the new Alexis will play that big of a role on this show. Their focus is clearly on the younger characters -- focusing on a 50 y.o. woman (even if they take out a few years) is not the CW's thing. It looks like Cristal's main enemy is Fallon. I am even doubting if she'll ever be brought on in any permanent basis. I'm sure they won't resist for the publicity such an arrival would bring, but I wouldn't be surprised if she's a recurring character. 

 

 

Please share what you can when you do. I'm very curious. It sounds like you don't need any connection to the original to appreciate it, which was 90% trash anyway.

 

 

That's what I feared. The all-important casting of the female lead seemed, at the very least, rushed. It sounds like they thought she's worked at that network before, she'll do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The point is that they're a bunch of WASPs.

 

Krystle being hispanic doesn't change that. Nor would Matthew Blaisdel being black change it. But the whole point of Dynasty was that this woman from a not favourable background marrying into these... WASPs. And of course Fallon hating her because Fallon has daddy issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

That's the 80s DYNASTY. The Colbys were WASPs. Not anymore. Not in this version. Have you read the article(s) regarding the Jeff casting? Blake and Jeff are rivals. I doubt he wants Jeff around Fallon. In fact, as already revealed to us, Fallon may use Jeff as revenge against her father. Therefore, what I said -- that the Colbys being black doesn't hinder a feud -- stands.  

 

Does it alter the original structure and history? Sure. But I think it's pretty obvious this is an all-out remake.

Edited by YRBB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

But sometimes it does matter.

 

Change Krystle's etnicity? Fine - she's supposed to be middle class marrying into a wealthy family.

Change Matthew Blaisdel (who doesn't seem to be in this reboot at all)? Fine - se above.

Change WASP-y Jeff Colby? Um... it does change A LOT. It also alters the whole Carringtons vs Colbys storyline. The Colby's were wealthier and more powerful than the Carringtons to start - hence why Blake pushed Fallon to marry Jeff.

 

I could go on and on and on, but I guess I'll have to wait to see the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Again: It's not 1983 anymore (nor should it be). Rich people are not exclusively white. The conception of a well-to-do upper crust family is not limited to the concept of the white WASP. And there is nothing wrong with a black family being more powerful than the Carringtons. America has changed, culture has changed, wealth has changed. We're not frozen in stasis based on the concepts of the ancient Spelling soap - I know they were super-popular in Europe as a glitzy fantasy vision of America, but it's not actually accurate.

 

I am not endorsing this reboot in any way as I don't care about Dynasty, but acting like changing the races of the characters over 30 years later is a bridge too far is silly to me.

Edited by Vee
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

    • Does anyone have a casting choice in mind for Sharon ? I'd totally love to see Anna Maria Horsford 
    • That’s great news!! Thanks so much!!  
    • It would have been interesting to see Sam Groom back in the role of Russ, when the character returned in 1989 (or even in a later return).  David Bailey was acceptable as Russ, but he didn't have much acting range.  And if Russ and Rachel ever reunited, I don't think Bailey would have been the best choice, because Rachel's husband sort of becomes AW's leading man. I don't think Bailey would have risen to that challenge. But Groom could have done that wonderfully.  I would have also been okay with a complete recast -- hopefully with an actor with a good deal of soap opera experience and someone happy with the role long-term.   And to answer a question: I do not believe Russ's return in 1989 was originally meant to be short-term.  With the reveal that Josie was his daughter, and with Olivia on the canvas, there was lots for Russ to do.  I think Lemay's plan was that Russ return permanently, but Donna Swajeski probably didn't think he was exciting enough and lost interest in Russ.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • However, let me say this and I don't think it applies in the case of MM and BC. Straight actors shouldn't accept a role if they are unwilling to play intimate scenes that are often required in daytime. Imagine a gay actor accepting a straight role and saying they won't do any intimate scenes or have very limited intimacy with an opposite sex co-star. It wouldn't happen though, because the stigma works one way.  I think the limited intimacy has more to do with trepidation of how soap viewers will take it. The average soap viewer is older and more conservative and soaps aren't exactly drawing in younger eyes, so storylines have tended to lean more safe in the 21st Century especially in terms of sex and sexuality with a few exceptions.    On that note, I have finally caught up this week. I am loving the Anita stuff that is brewing and I'm glad TT is finally getting some meaty story to work on and not just be a mouthpiece to move others' stories along or play narrator. NuTed is not sitting well with me. I am having a hard time understanding the casting change, because the new actor isn't exactly hitting it out of the park and he makes the other characters play and feel different with how he plays opposite them. I'm going to give it time, but there was something more endearing about Ted #1  inspite of some of his acting shortcomings.  I am obsessed with Wig. Our girl is really crazy and I'm not sure they're going to be able to keep her on for long without turning her into a caricature or making the show a big joke, but for now mammaaaa (*Eva's voice*) is providing the dramatics.  I've said this before, but I'm super impressed by how far the actress playing Naomi has come. I wonder what she's been doing, because she's gotten so comfortable and the acting has vastly improved.  I have a feeling that Bill is going to say something about Martin being zesty and Chelsea is going to be there to overhear. I thought it was interesting that she didn't feel comfortable telling her father and the convo between Dani and Chels hinted that maybe he might be a little more old school in thinking. 
    • I disagree. I think Jill going off the rails made perfect sense.  It was a multi season process starting in season 8, climaxing at the season 9 cliffhanger, and continuing into season 10.   It was after Jill's story ended was when Knots Landing really went off the rails because it happened just as Abby was leaving the show.. and the Lathams didn't really have anything interesting to follow both of these events.
    • Thank you for that. I came into the show at a confusing time for Cliff because he just floats from one story to the next and his job appears to change. I like him even though I know I probably shouldn't since he's such a creep at times. I might have to go back and watch some of the previous stories because I'm missing some important pieces of Deborah and Geraldine's backstories.    Thank you for the explanation. I'm not sure I have the patience for that so I think I'll give it a miss. I must have bought it with the idea that it was going to cover her time on the soaps. 
    • David Bailey was the only actor that I remember as Russ. I was too young to remember Sam Groom or Robert Hover. When David Bailey returned in 1989, I thought the powers that be should have recast the part. However, I went back to watch some episodes with Bailey. Actually, Bailey was good. The show missed a great opportunity to keep Bailey on longer than six months. Bailey always great chemistry with Vickie Wyndham, Irene Dailey and Connie Ford. And he was good in scenes with Carmen Duncan. Russ could have been involved with Iris again and possibly Rachel with the return of Carl Hutchins. Charles Keating's reappearance in 1989 with Carl being involved with the Red Swan story.  Beverly Penberthy's return in 1989 would have been a treat. Pat could have played the aunt for Josie to lean on, and good romantic pairing later for Spencer Harrison. Even though Paul Stevens had passed away in 1986. I would have brought back the character Brian Bancroft; this time being played by Donald May or John Gabriel. Was the intention for David Bailey to return for only short-term purposes.
    • First up: Finishing up January 1974. Then on to 1973! FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 12/31/73-1/4/74 & 1/7/74-1/11/74:

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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