Can they just end this now?

thomaswak

Telly Talk TV Fanatic
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
550
Location
France
What 2 part mini series?

Never heard of it and I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
If it's not on DVD, it doesn't exist.
Anyway, the Original Dynasty mini is not canon in my head :D

And a spin-off! The Flores!
And I won't watch it ;)
To be honest, I only watched season 1 of The Colbys during its original run in France in 1986. And never watched second season : in France they didn't air it for 13 years ! First airing of season 2 was on a cable channel in 1999...

I know where to watch season 2 now, but i'lm not interested; I am a Fallon fan, and the Colby's Fallon is so dull that (even if I love Emma Samms) I can't stand the character's writing. My only reason to watch season 2 would be Stephanie Beacham.
 
Last edited:

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
And I won't watch it ;)
To be honest, I only watched season 1 of The Colbys during its original run in France. And never watched second season. in France they didn't air it for decades. I'm not even sure France aired it so far (maybe on a cable channel)

I know where to watch season 2 now, but i'lm not interested; I am a Fallon fan, and the Colby's Fallon is so dull that (even if I love Emma Samms) I can't stand the character's writing. My only reason to watch season 2 would be Stephanie Beacham.
Season 2 is an improvement over season 1, although really there was no other way to go than up. You are right that the way they wrote Fallon was horrendous, which is ironic that she was supposed to be the draw for Dynasty fans. Even though, sadly, Maxwell Caulfield is not as good an actor as he is hot, his scenes with Beecham are interesting because of these bizarre "too close for comfort" overtones. And when Phillip shows up, the plot actually does catch fire.
 

thomaswak

Telly Talk TV Fanatic
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
550
Location
France
Season 2 is an improvement over season 1, although really there was no other way to go than up. You are right that the way they wrote Fallon was horrendous, which is ironic that she was supposed to be the draw for Dynasty fans. Even though, sadly, Maxwell Caulfield is not as good an actor as he is hot, his scenes with Beecham are interesting because of these bizarre "too close for comfort" overtones. And when Phillip shows up, the plot actually does catch fire.
Maybe they wrote Fallon like "Daddy's Princess" because Sable was supposed to be THE bitch on the show ? Anyway, Fallon was back from the dead, but she behaved deader than alive :D

Thanks for your opinion. Good to know that season 2 is an improvement over season 1. (Maybe I will give it a try with that in mind)
 

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
Maybe they wrote Fallon like "Daddy's Princess" because Sable was supposed to be THE bitch on the show ? Anyway, Fallon was back from the dead, but she behaved deader than alive :D
I don't think the show cared about writing for Fallon much (or females of that age group perhaps). They wanted a plot where the two former cousins/now brothers fight over her and the only way for that to happen was for Fallon to turn into a hausfrau. Dynasty Fallon would have ditched them both if they were too much of a headache and run to Daddy, then run off with some Argentinian soccer player.
 

thomaswak

Telly Talk TV Fanatic
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
550
Location
France
I don't think the show cared about writing for Fallon much (or females of that age group perhaps). They wanted a plot where the two former cousins/now brothers fight over her and the only way for that to happen was for Fallon to turn into a hausfrau. Dynasty Fallon would have ditched them both if they were too much of a headache and run to Daddy, then run off with some Argentinian soccer player.
And what a terrible hausfrau (thanks, I have learned a new word !). And she was even not a "desperate hausfrau", but a "hopeless hausfrau"
No life, no spark, nothing like original Fallon. I am so happy David Paulsen saved the character with season 9. An thank God original Dynasty wasn't cancelled after season 8. At least we got a good (unresolved) season before the end.

That's why I don't like the idea of cancellation, or calling for cancellation. Producers/writers should be noticed to end their show, not cancel it in the last minutes. Also, if we always cancel a show because a season is not good, was can miss a lot. ABC Lost had a perfect season 1, season two was disappointing (but useful for later stories), mid season 3 got the series interesting again, and season 4 is my absolute favorite season (I love season 5 too, and dislike season 6 a lot)

Also, when ratings are not that good, cancellation shouldn't be immediate. I mean, Fox were thinking about cancelling the X-Files during season 1... It became later a worldwide phenomena.

Anyway, I know that nothing like this can happen with NuDynasty :D At best it will become a guilty pleasure. A worlwilde phenomena ? Only in NuFallon self delusion. After all she really thinks she's a smart business woman.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ked

Mel O'Drama

Super Moderator
Staff Member
Messages
6,933
Reaction score
9,530
Medals
12
Member Since
28th September 2008
Can they just end the show now?!
If you're not watching it anymore why do you care?
In other words, I don't like this show, I don't agree with what they're doing so I want it cancelled. I don't care if anyone else is watching, I don't give a damn about the viewers having fun with the show. It's all about what I want.
I really don't understand why people ask for cancellation of something they don't care, they don't watch.
I wouldn't call for it to be cancelled. I just stopped watching.
what they are doing with Adam currently intrigues me and has me watching, so I would not want it cancelled.
I gave up on Peach Dynasty being anything like the original and accept it for what it is.
I've found this conversation quite fascinating. Something curious happens with remakes, reboots and sequels that brings out a unique passion in people and polarises like nothing else.

First a caveat: I haven't watched a full episode of the rebooted Dynasty. I too decided it wasn't for me. But I've enjoyed following the discussion in this forum, watching the odd clip here and there and @Daniel Avery's episode recaps.

But just to play Devil's Advocate, I can understand where the OP is coming from. Attached to reviving any kind of project - whether rebooting a TV series, covering a song or remaking a film - there's the risk of diluting or even tainting a product that people have invested in. Not that Dynasty is necessarily doing this (*takes a moment to straighten face*) but when a product is marketed - even partially - on brand recognition, there will be an existing market for that product who have their own idea of what it looks like. For this and numerous other reasons, I tend to fall into the school of "let sleeping dogs lie".

Of the series in this genre, I'd say I'm most invested in Knots Landing. There's a certain - almost indefinable - something that the name conjures up that, more often than not, speaks to me just a little more than another name might. With that degree of investment comes something else. "Ownership" is a little strong, but there's a special something attached to my overall journey with this particular product that feels like I have a stake in it. The reality, of course is that I'm simply one of many millions of consumers the product has reached, and one of several thousands to remain loyal to it. But logic and fandom are rarely good bedfellows.

When Dallas was revived and there was talk of Knots characters appearing, I found myself feeling a little uncomfortable. There was a sense that if Knots was revived it may not speak to me in the same way. And could ultimately foul the nest and even somehow mar my enjoyment of the original (logic vs. fandom again). And in this case it was reinforced by Gary and Val's appearances in the new Dallas. Overall I didn't care for the treatment of these characters in the new series and it bothered me more than it did Ray and Lucy getting a cough and a spit. Simply put, if fans were inexplicably asked to vote on reviving the series or not I'd almost certainly have voted no. And that would be true for an overwhelming majority of series I've followed.

So not only can I understand both points of view here, but the scales move in both directions for me. There's the logical, objective adult part that says if someone enjoys it then what's the harm. Then there's the less objective twelve year old fan who breathed a rather large sigh of relief when the mooted Return To Eden revival fell through.
 

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
But just to play Devil's Advocate, I can understand where the OP is coming from. Attached to reviving any kind of project - whether rebooting a TV series, covering a song or remaking a film - there's the risk of diluting or even tainting a product that people have invested in. Not that Dynasty is necessarily doing this (*takes a moment to straighten face*) but when a product is marketed - even partially - on brand recognition, there will be an existing market for that product who have their own idea of what it looks like. For this and numerous other reasons, I tend to fall into the school of "let sleeping dogs lie".
A reboot or remake is by definition a heretic move, so it is bound to rile the fans of the original. It is an almost direct statement saying: there is something the original didn't do (or can't do anymore for this era) so I will do it. As I have stated in more or less every forum I have posted at one time or another, I find Battlestar Galactica the definition of a successful reboot: the show's creators said "nope, we don't like the mickey mouse treatment the original gave the annihilation of an entire civilization, so we will do it the way it should be." Before the reboot aired, so many fans of the original had called for an intifada against it, and if there were more of them around than could fill an auditorium, it would have been a sight to see. :p

I kind of see why a continuation (like TNT Dallas) has its own problems, because they are messing with an established entity. But at the same time, the basic elements are not challenged: they are not changing a character from male to female (Starbuck on the two Galacticas) or from a force of nature to a laughing stock (Alexis in the two Dynasties) or someone's status as a Carrington (Steven in the two Dynasties). The TNT Dallas' most conspicuous change came with Cliff, from a perennial loser to a sociopath mastermind, but it could have been explained if the show cared enough about the franchise's loyal contingent.

I, and many others, would have preferred a prequel as was initially the plan, because the characters would be the same, and we would finally be dealing with a hugely unexplored (and full of potential) past. Plus, much as I love Dynasty, I don't see what about this story or characters have to say in 2019 that it was such an imperative to modernize them. But maybe the CW and Netflix know better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ked

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
Messages
13,877
Reaction score
16,065
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Medals
15
Member Since
April 2002
I can understand where the OP is coming from
I think he's more concerned about ratings and stuff.
And could ultimately foul the nest and even somehow mar my enjoyment of the original (logic vs. fandom again).
Sorry but I've never understood this argument.
What was good was good and it will remain so. When I watched the last season of Falcon Crest for the first time I hated it, but it didn't affect my opinion of the show as a whole, let alone my favourite seasons.
The Murder In Peyton Place movie was atrocious, if it had been a sequel series then I wouldn't have watched it. But it could never retroactively spoil the brilliant 60s series.
NuDynasty can't touch ODynasty, they're different shows with different stories and actors.
Another argument is: how is the "tarnishing effect" going to affect the opinion of everyone else? But why should I care how other people feel about these shows?

Ironically, the only thing that could change my fanboy perception of ODynasty is when the remake is better than the original.
Simply put, if fans were inexplicably asked to vote on reviving the series or not I'd almost certainly have voted no
I want to see it first and then decide how good or bad it is. A "no" eliminates my choices, and I don't like that.

Nothing that happens to these characters has any long term consequences or repercussions and so these characters don't progress EVER
NuDynasty is making the same mistakes as ODynasty.
The biggest difference is that ODynasty didn't play for laughs, although they've done quite a bit of intentional camp, and those scenes are downright cringeworthy.
You mention long term consequences or repercussions.
Everyone on ODynasty was forgiven. Nothing should change too much (e.g. Blake and Krystle, Moldavia), plotlines were dropped or blatantly sabotaged by the writers (perhaps with some imput from the actors).
I'd be hard-pressed to think of an interesting character development or progress, and if it happened then it usually wasn't for the better (Steven, Krystle, Fallon, Claudia etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ked

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
Everyone on ODynasty was forgiven. Nothing should change too much (e.g. Blake and Krystle, Moldavia), plotlines were dropped or blatantly sabotaged by the writers (perhaps with some imput from the actors).
I'd be hard-pressed to think of an interesting character development or progress, and if it happened then it usually wasn't for the better (Steven, Krystle, Fallon, Claudia etc).
You are right overall for Dynasty. Blake actually did change in becoming more accepting of Steven's homosexuality, and that is one of only two positive changes I can think of. The other is Adam, who had changed a lot through the storylines in seasons 7 and 8, especially in his relationship with others and namely his siblings, but then Paulsen undid all that in a single episode with having him burn Steven's letter--and continued from there.
 

thomaswak

Telly Talk TV Fanatic
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
550
Location
France
You mention long term consequences or repercussions.
Everyone on ODynasty was forgiven. Nothing should change too much (e.g. Blake and Krystle, Moldavia), plotlines were dropped or blatantly sabotaged by the writers (perhaps with some imput from the actors).
I'd be hard-pressed to think of an interesting character development or progress, and if it happened then it usually wasn't for the better (Steven, Krystle, Fallon, Claudia etc).
I think Sammy Jo had the most character development. At least the best evolution (till the reunion, which was a 100 % regression)
 

Ferdnand Colby

Telly Talk Member
Messages
74
Reaction score
28
Location
Los Ángeles
One where the lead character, the patriarch, has a terminal illness--except he doesn't? And his sister decides to leave everything to his nephew now that her brother is dying, except he isn't? And when she finds out her brother isn't dying, she changes none of her hasty decisions? And his nephew isn't his nephew but his son? And his nephew/son's former wife has amnesia and marries his cousin/brother? And she thinks she has been raped by her brother, except she hasn't? Even peach Dynasty can't come up with such lunacy! :D (See, and I didn't even mention the bakers with the cinnamon.)
That's a great show... except it isn't hahahaha

The Flores, starring:
Antonio Banderas as Felipe Flores
Salma Hayek as Isabel -Sabel- Flores
Jessica Alba as Francesca Flores

Victoria Justice as Monica Flores
Melonie Diaz as Cheess Flores
Wilmer Valderrama as Milton -Mills- Flores

And Rita Moreno as Constanza Flores

I'm trying to recreate what -sort of -big Hollywood names not working today could work in this mess, with not very known actors playing the Flores kids...

And please, don't care if they are not Mexican. A very British Emma Samms was supposed to be American back then...

I could imagine Constanza Flores opening those doors at the end of the credits, LOL

I'm bored, I know. Creativity ensues... hahaha
 
Last edited:

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
Messages
13,877
Reaction score
16,065
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Medals
15
Member Since
April 2002
So you prefer no character development, even though you criticize the lack of it
Despite the drugs explanation I always felt he had this Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde personality. His "normal" Michael Torrance persona and the Carrington heir who had inherited his parents worst genes.
He lost his child to the Atkinsons and his marriage fell apart. When Adam hurts, everybody should hurt.
There was nothing far-fetched about it. He'll always be capable of doing horrible things.
 

tommie

Telly Talk Winner
Messages
3,570
Reaction score
1,887
Location
Sweden
Medals
1
Member Since
I dunno
Despite the drugs explanation I always felt he had this Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde personality. His "normal" Michael Torrance persona and the Carrington heir who had inherited his parents worst genes.
He lost his child to the Atkinsons and his marriage fell apart. When Adam hurts, everybody should hurt.
There was nothing far-fetched about it. He'll always be capable of doing horrible things.
I agree - yes, Adam did regress in season nine on the show but it was pretty much explained by him losing his child and his wife. What was there left to keep him on the goody two shoes path? It made perfect sense for his character.

If anything, Sammy Jo losing so much of her scheming edge was a bit drastic and it would've made sense for her to return to it at some point, not trying to become a model in her late 20s...
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Hero
Messages
6,668
Reaction score
6,233
Medals
3
Member Since
July 2007
NuDynasty is making the same mistakes as ODynasty.
The biggest difference is that ODynasty didn't play for laughs, although they've done quite a bit of intentional camp, and those scenes are downright cringeworthy.
You mention long term consequences or repercussions.
Everyone on ODynasty was forgiven. Nothing should change too much (e.g. Blake and Krystle, Moldavia), plotlines were dropped or blatantly sabotaged by the writers (perhaps with some imput from the actors).
I'd be hard-pressed to think of an interesting character development or progress, and if it happened then it usually wasn't for the better (Steven, Krystle, Fallon, Claudia etc).
Well I think that events that transpired did have consequences. Alexis and Krystle's feud wasn't born solely out of the two women not getting on. Alexis fired a shot that killed Krystle's unborn child. And then those women could never be on amicable terms. You could also say that Blake started out in season 1 as a cold bastard, still angry and wounded from the brake up of his marriage to Alexis, and slowly grew into a benevolent and loving father and husband during his marriage to Krystle. Lazy writing and ideas from Forsythe and Evans about their characters likely facilitated this more than a well thought out story arc, but at the end of the day that's the direction the story took.
When Blake killed Ted Dinard it created a whole arc with Steven and Blake and thinly veiled animosity. It was only when Steven returned with a new face in season 3 that he and Blake began to rebuild a relationship. Sammy Jo changed very much right after the Rita storyline. She finally saw the error of her ways and became the angelic Krystle-lite niece and not a scheming vixen. Although the writing for Fallon was mostly a mess after season 3, there is a narrative there if you look for it that suggests she was in the middle of some mental problems for a few years. Including her time as a Stepford wife on The Colbys, and her slow climb back to fabulousness in season 8 of Dynasty resulting in full restoration to an almost Original Recipe Fallon in season 9.
In season 8, Alexis decided foolishly to run for Governor against Blake, it was a silly storyline, yes. But it had repercussions, as she left her business affairs to Sean Rowan to manage and he ran Colby Co into the ground, resulting in Alexis not being in the position of power she had been in for years during season 9.

Although original Dynasty dropped stories left right and centre and had many a convoluted plot and braindead idea it did actually tell a story, and characters did grow, somewhat. It was stilted, but not dead end. I cant say the same for the new show. Most of the time it feels like a self contained sitcom, with the odd soapy episode. Original Dynasty never felt like that.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
Messages
13,877
Reaction score
16,065
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Medals
15
Member Since
April 2002
Well obviously I wasn't comparing NuDynasty to the good parts of ODynasty. NuDynasty never had a good season, just a handful of really good episodes.

But story-wise you could skip seasons 4 to 8, it's in season 9 when the story moves forward again. That doesn't mean there was nothing to enjoy in the stilted years, on the contrary, but Dynasty was often afraid of change, meaning that there were very little consequences in the grand scheme of things.
 
Top