Jump to content


dragonflies

Dynasty: Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Vee said:

 

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.

 

But Jeff is an "upstart" in the new reboot. That's another failure for this.

 

They've essentially changed his character in a way I don't agree with, though with the Shapiros involved I should've expected it.

 

Also making the Colby's/Carrington's WASP-y is a point in itself! A very direct one I might add.

Edited by te.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I wonder why they're reviving/rebooting the show at all.  DYNASTY was a hit for one reason and one reason only: Joan Collins.  The writing for the series was dreadful before they cast her; it wasn't much better once she WAS cast; and without her, the show probably wouldn't have lasted past season two.  Ergo, there is no good reason (aside from simple laziness and the fact that we have a relic from that era now running the country) for anyone to bring back this POS.  But I guess we should expect this from the Shapiros, who once had the audacity to compare this show to "I, Claudius."

Edited by Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Khan said:

Frankly, I wonder why they're reviving/rebooting the show at all.  DYNASTY was a hit for one reason and one reason only: Joan Collins.  The writing for the series was dreadful before they cast her; it wasn't much better once she WAS cast; and without her, the show probably wouldn't have lasted past season two.  Ergo, there is no good reason (aside from simple laziness and the fact that we have a relic from that era now running the country) for anyone to bring back this POS.  But I guess we should expect this from the Shapiros, who once had the audacity to compare this show to "I, Claudius."

I don't think the Shapiros ever compared the show to I, Claudius - they were hoping to adapt the story to a contemporary setting. Once this was paired with ABC and Spelling's desire to have their own Dallas, Dynasty was born.

The thing is, people can down talk the show as much as they want to, but it still stands as one of the most widely viewed series in the history of television. It shouldn't be a shock that this is happening, especially considering we've already had a TV movie about the making of the series, several reunion specials, and now-outdated rumors of feature film adaptations. It was only a matter of time. I think the fundamental changes they're making are a direct reflection of their realization that they can't just ape the original series. IDK, maybe it's because I was so impressed with Netflix's One Day at a Time that I'm mildly optimistic about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how sad is it, AMS, that we're now in an era when rebooting/reviving/rewhatevering hit shows from decades past is considered the norm?  Whatever happened to creating and developing GOOD and ORIGINAL ideas for series and not just piggybacking onto series that have already had their day?

 

Moreover, it's one thing for a network like The CW to reboot or revive a teen- and young-adult-skewing series like 90210 or MELROSE PLACE...but DYNASTY?  Who does The CW think the will appeal to?  Not the youngins who comprise their target demographic; they probably have never heard of the original series.  For that matter, their parents are probably too young to remember much about the original show either.

 

Honestly, aside from gay men and Reagan-era nostalgia freaks, who even CARES about DYNASTY anymore, let alone wishes for some network to bring it back in some form?

Edited by Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Khan said:

Frankly, I wonder why they're reviving/rebooting the show at all.  DYNASTY was a hit for one reason and one reason only: Joan Collins.  The writing for the series was dreadful before they cast her; it wasn't much better once she WAS cast; and without her, the show probably wouldn't have lasted past season two.  Ergo, there is no good reason (aside from simple laziness and the fact that we have a relic from that era now running the country) for anyone to bring back this POS.  But I guess we should expect this from the Shapiros, who once had the audacity to compare this show to "I, Claudius."

 

88b95bd377bc39f0a5035581bce1e581.jpg

 

Exactly. Everyone on the cast, except John Forsyth and Linda Evans, along with Spelling, E. Duke Vincent, the Shapiros, Ted Harbert at ABC...everyone admitted that Joan made the show. Joan was 'Dynasty'...this show should not be reincarnated. If this thing does go ahead they should not even bother having Alexis on unless it's Joan playing her. Joan was Alexis - and not just because of the glamorous image - she rewrote her scripts regularly to punch up the dialog. Joan knew she could make a career defining role out of that character and that's exactly what she damn well did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive never forgiven the CW for how they basically trashed Ringer...even though it got decent ratings because it didnt reach the demo they wanted.  CW banked in drawing in SMG fans...yet didnt realize her fan base was outside their target demo.

 

So with this wisdom, im expecting Dynasty to also fail because it probably wont appeal to the demos CW wants.  Still Ill do a wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably watch an episode or two. I'd rather have the original back for a season or two. Considering how Dallas lasted 3 more years ....I could see Dynasty lasting at least 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Khan said:

But how sad is it, AMS, that we're now in an era when rebooting/reviving/rewhatevering hit shows from decades past is considered the norm?  Whatever happened to creating and developing GOOD and ORIGINAL ideas for series and not just piggybacking onto series that have already had their day?

 

Moreover, it's one thing for a network like The CW to reboot or revive a teen- and young-adult-skewing series like 90210 or MELROSE PLACE...but DYNASTY?  Who does The CW think this will appeal to?  Surely, not the youngins who comprise their target demographic.  Hell, even many of their parents are too young to remember much about the show.  Aside from gay men and Reagan-era nostalgia freaks, who even CARES about DYNASTY anymore, let alone wishes for someone to bring it back in some form?


To your first point, I think it's neither here nor there. For whatever reason, it's the zeitgeist. A year ago, they were talking about bringing Coach back, of all shows, so literally nothing is out of the question. Hell, even our very own AMC and OLTL, in their online forms, could be considered part of the trend.

To your second point, the misconception, to me, seems to be that this is going be either a direct remake or will be heavily influenced by the original series. The fact that it's on The CW and will be geared towards a younger audience all but confirms that this won't be the Dynasty that is beloved by nostalgia freaks and gay men, which is also why I think those particular groups (of which I proudly belong to both - notice I left out "Reagan-era" :lol:) will be disappointed no matter how this turns out unless they're also interested in current young adult dramas.

My thing with remakes has always been that if the show has the same feel, then it's a go. The new ODAAT is the first remake in a looooooooong time (outside of something like the latest Pyramid revival) that has passed that test for me, and I was one of the ones who questioned its existence when it was first released. They changed the ethnicity of the three central characters, merged two of the original's characters into one (nuODAAT's Alex is definitely a combo of Barbara and original Alex), changed all but two of the characters' first names, changed the setting, etc, yet every single episode still had the feeling of the original series. That type of thing takes a lot of care, planning, and passion, so it rarely happens, and odds are it most likely won't happen here either, but it can definitely be done.

And perhaps the key is completely overhauling - going more for "reimagining" than "remake."

Edited by All My Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

I agree. This show will not get the demos that they want b/c most people they aim their shows at weren't around when Dynasty was on air. I doubt anyone from the ages of 16 to 25 will be interested in a Dynasty reboot. 

 

If anything, another network (preferably ABC--the show's original home) should've did a continuation if anything. As many have pointed out, what made this show a success was Joan Collins. Unless they cast one hell of cast to capture the magic the original show possessed, I see this show being a major did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DaytimeFan said:

If this thing does go ahead they should not even bother having Alexis on unless it's Joan playing her.

 

Remember: the Shapiros and Aaron Spelling brought Alexis and JC aboard, because the show was in trouble.  (At least, that's the version I've heard.  For all I know, they probably had it in their minds to introduce Alexis all along.)  If DYNASTY had been more successful during its first season, with the premise of the rich-and-powerful Carringtons contrasted with the working-class Blaisdels and Krystle caught in the middle, there's a good chance Alexis might have remained offscreen.  So, unless a similar fate awaits the new series, I think we might be spared the war crime that will be Khloe Kardashian as the new Alexis Carrington Colby Dexter etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

Remember: the Shapiros and Aaron Spelling brought Alexis and JC aboard, because the show was in trouble.  (At least, that's the version I've heard.  For all I know, they probably had it in their minds to introduce Alexis all along.)  If DYNASTY had been more successful during its first season, with the premise of the rich-and-powerful Carringtons contrasted with the working-class Blaisdels and Krystle caught in the middle, there's a good chance Alexis might have remained offscreen.  So, unless a similar fate awaits the new series, I think we might be spared the war crime that will be Khloe Kardashian as the new Alexis Carrington Colby Dexter etc.

 

That's the reality. The show was in terrible shape, on the verge of being cancelled and Spelling told ABC he'd get a star in the league of Elizabeth Taylor to come on for season two. Elizabeth Taylor balked, Sophia Loren wanted too much money and the network didn't want Jessica Walter (the Shapiro's choice)...so Spelling argued for Joan and while everyone kicked and screamed Spelling flew her out and she hit the ground running. 

 

Spelling had a real talent for recasting fallen stars of old Hollywood into popular television stars. Joan is probably the best example of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Khan said:

The writing for the series was dreadful before they cast her; it wasn't much better once she WAS cast; and without her, the show probably wouldn't have lasted past season two. 

 

I agree with what you've said re: the usefulness of a reboot, but the show's first season was excellent -- still some of the best primetime soap ever done, and a serious competition to some of cable's best shows currently. After all, the show did do decently enough in the ratings to get a second season renewal (along with whatever magic Spelling worked). That being said, it wasn't buzzworthy and the changes made for Season 2 really did benefit it in popularity. It's only after Season 3 that the writing plummeted to the depths of hell.

Share this post


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

the misconception, to me, seems to be that this is going be either a direct remake or will be heavily influenced by the original series. The fact that it's on The CW and will be geared towards a younger audience all but confirms that this won't be the Dynasty that is beloved by nostalgia freaks and gay men, which is also why I think those particular groups [...] will be disappointed no matter how this turns out

 

I understand what you're saying, AMS.  Nevertheless, if it isn't a direct remake, and if it isn't influenced by the original series, then what the hell is it?  And why bother calling it DYNASTY if you don't want it to evoke memories of the original (which you don't have, if you were too young before and have never seen any reruns)?  Why not just give the characters new names that are unconnected to the original series, rename the series itself SAGA, and hope for the best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

I understand what you're saying, AMS.  Nevertheless, if it isn't a direct remake, and if it isn't influenced by the original series, then what the hell is it?  And why bother calling it DYNASTY if you don't want it to evoke memories of the original (which you don't have, if you were too young before and have never seen any reruns)?  Why not just give the characters new names that are unconnected to the original series, rename the series itself SAGA, and hope for the best?

It should be called Dynasty: The Hernandez's......just like with the Colbys....we know how long that lasted.:ph34r:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

I understand what you're saying, AMS.  Nevertheless, if it isn't a direct remake, and if it isn't influenced by the original series, then what the hell is it?  And why bother calling it DYNASTY if you don't want it to evoke memories of the original (which you don't have, if you were too young before and have never seen any reruns)?  Why not just give the characters new names that are unconnected to the original series, rename the series itself SAGA, and hope for the best?

I asked these same questions re: ODAAT just several months ago. They produced a damn good show, though, so I'm rolling with it, but those questions still remain. Will this group inspire the same level of "Oh well, IDK why they did it this way, but I'm glad they're doing it"? Maybe so, probably not. Y'all know I like to wait and see.

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...