Cast’s thoughts on season 9

colbyco

Telly Talk Active Member
Messages
293
Reaction score
289
Location
Germany
Most of the DYNASTY actors are not good with details like we are for they were not fans of the show. I know the writers, directors, and producers weren't.
- we watch them over and over again and discuss them .... but I wouldn´t be sure if I know the right amount of episodes she was in. For them it was work ... I barely don´t remember much details about my last work and that wasn´t nearly 30 years ago.
 

Brian Carrington Colby

Telly Talk Member
Messages
87
Reaction score
77
Location
Canada
Member Since
2005
Actually, in her defence, Joan isn't too far off in her story regarding her reduced Season 9 episode participation as shown in this video. If you listen Joan says that she walked into the studio at beginning of production of Season 9 expecting to do "15" shows, only to be told that to save the show money, she would only appear in 10 episodes. This makes sense if one takes into account that Dynasty was initially renewed for only 13 episodes for Season 9. Yes, she is not remembering correctly when she says "15" episodes instead of the correct 13 episode count, but the fundamentals are correct if you look at her story within the context of the moment of time she is recounting.

Now, in the newspaper article I found from the Wausau Daily Herald-Friday June 24 1988 recounting Dynasty's renewal for Season 9, what is open for debate is exactly when she found out about her reduced participation in Season 9, and was it due to the studio or did she ask for the reduced episode participation. According to this article in June 1988, when Joan signed her Season 9 contract she herself opted to only appear in half the season's then 13 episode count. Is this true, or studio whitewash?? Joan has always contended that her reduced participation was not her choice, and in interviews David Paulson does say that Joan's reduced participation was needed to save the show much needed production money, so I go with Joan here once again, though I don't agree with her recollection in the video that she walked on set the first day of production and was suddenly ambushed with this information. All this would have to of been negotiated before she ever would of walked on a set.
 
Last edited:

Brian Carrington Colby

Telly Talk Member
Messages
87
Reaction score
77
Location
Canada
Member Since
2005
On reflection of Joan's recounting of how she she feels she was squeezed out of Season 9, I do see her point of view. Yes, it can be said that Joan had (still has?) a huge ego, but regarding Dynasty, in many ways it was understandable that she felt she was one of the main Stars, and to have her star power diminished like that after all she had done for Dynasty, especially after she became in her view the highest paid actress on a TV show at that time, it must of been a huge blow. But, she did sign the contract at the end of the day to appear in that limited capacity for Season 9. I think her bruised ego does explain why she is missing from cast photo ops, such as the group shots at the beginning of the season, and the group shots from the 200 episode photo op.

Just some thoughts.....
 
Last edited:

colbyco

Telly Talk Active Member
Messages
293
Reaction score
289
Location
Germany
(...) Now, in the newspaper article I found from the Wausau Daily Herald-Friday June 24 1988 recounting Dynasty's renewal for Season 9, what is open for debate is exactly when she found out about her reduced participation in Season 9, and was it due to the studio or did she ask for the reduced episode participation. (...)
- Can you give us the link, please?

Here´s what Thomson and Forsythe said (if it´s true):

Artikel candle light wedding2.jpg
 

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,980
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
On reflection of Joan's recounting of how she she feels she was squeezed out of Season 9, I do see her point of view. Yes, it can be said that Joan had (still has?) a huge ego, but regarding Dynasty, in many ways it was understandable that she felt she was one of the main Stars, and to have her star power diminished like that after all she had done for Dynasty, especially after she became in her view the highest paid actress on a TV show at that time, it must of been a huge blow.
The many episodes without Alexis (and Krystle, but I find that not that important considering what had happened to the role) is one of the most valid reasons I have read by fans who say the last year was not really DYNASTY. But while I respect that opinion, I can't share it, for season 1 is my favorite season of the show, and there is no Alexis in sight. If anything, her looming presence in season 9 (when will she appear again and what will she do?) reminded me of the character casting quite a shadow in season 1. But yes, I can see that from Collins' perspective, it was a slap in the face.
 

Luke Fuller

Telly Talk Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
51
Location
Prague, Czech Republic
- Can you give us the link, please?

Here´s what Thomson and Forsythe said (if it´s true):

View attachment 14366
It looks that Dallas had similar rating problems like Dynasty in November / December 1988 (according to a small article on a page). Of course, Dallas was still in TOP 30, but falling. If I read correctly, it was No. 22 after the first three episodes in the season (and finally was ranked as show No. 29 in April 1989).
 

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,980
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
It looks that Dallas had similar rating problems like Dynasty in November / December 1988 (according to a small article on a page). Of course, Dallas was still in TOP 30, but falling. If I read correctly, it was No. 22 after the first three episodes in the season (and finally was ranked as show No. 29 in April 1989).
You're right, though Dallas was longer in the tooth at that point than Dynasty was. I think overall Dallas had a good run--many of the characters and their stories were explored. The problem with Dynasty's bad years was that it was giving prominence to outsiders while leaving main characters to be window dressing. At some point in 7B even Alexis was no more important than Gerald.
 

Snarky's Ghost

Telly Talk Oracle
Messages
7,965
Reaction score
5,665
Location
Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
Medals
7
Member Since
September 2000
You're right, though Dallas was longer in the tooth at that point than Dynasty was. I think overall Dallas had a good run--many of the characters and their stories were explored. The problem with Dynasty's bad years was that it was giving prominence to outsiders while leaving main characters to be window dressing. At some point in 7B even Alexis was no more important than Gerald.
Yes, DYNASTY lost interest in its own characters very quickly, and DALLAS didn't. That's everything.
 

tommie

Telly Talk Winner
Messages
3,593
Reaction score
1,914
Location
Sweden
Medals
1
Member Since
I dunno
You're right, though Dallas was longer in the tooth at that point than Dynasty was. I think overall Dallas had a good run--many of the characters and their stories were explored. The problem with Dynasty's bad years was that it was giving prominence to outsiders while leaving main characters to be window dressing. At some point in 7B even Alexis was no more important than Gerald.
Dallas's biggest problem was obviously that it was an aging show that was getting more expensive and they started having to make changes to accomodate that. They had to cut characters that they probably wouldn't have if they had another option, they also had to end up giving people like Larry Hagman and Patrick Duffy far too much influence to get them to stay on the show. It's just a case of a show that ran it's course, just like Knots Landing or Beverly Hills 90210.

Dynasty just self-sabotaged when there were no valid reasons for it to.
 

GillesDenver

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
751
Reaction score
469
Location
Moldavia
Well not exactly, "Dallas" also suffered from some terrible storylines in its last years. And if the show was too expensive and some budgetary cuts became necessary, it was because the ratings were plummetting. But I agree that the departure of some major characters did not help.

It is quite different from "Beverly Hills 90210" (and "Melrose Place") which lost some actors because they wanted to do something else, not for budgetary reasons.
 

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,980
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
Well not exactly, "Dallas" also suffered from some terrible storylines in its last years. And if the show was too expensive and some budgetary cuts became necessary, it was because the ratings were plummeting. But I agree that the departure of some major characters did not help.
Yeah, I agree with that--it's just that Dallas lasted for 13 seasons (not counting the mini-series as one) and 9 of them were in the top 20. But in its last two seasons the ratings were as bad as Dynasty's final two.
 

tommie

Telly Talk Winner
Messages
3,593
Reaction score
1,914
Location
Sweden
Medals
1
Member Since
I dunno
Well not exactly, "Dallas" also suffered from some terrible storylines in its last years. And if the show was too expensive and some budgetary cuts became necessary, it was because the ratings were plummetting.
It doesn't really matter - it could've remained in the top 10 and there still would've had to be budget cuts, because actors inevitably get raises each year and that's not including when their contract ends and they go into negotiation. Grey's Anatomy is still one of the top rated shows in the target 18-49 demographic on television and they still have to continually make budget cuts to be able to make it work. That's why a lot of long-running shows end up cutting cast members despite decent ratings and that of course ends up causing a downward spiral for most.

Take Desperate Housewives - it didn't end because it's ratings were horrible, in fact the cast had been contracted for another year. They just saw the writing on the wall - to keep the show going they were either going to have to make cuts within the main cast OR end it before it became unprofitable. They choose the later option.
 

GillesDenver

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
751
Reaction score
469
Location
Moldavia
"Grey's Anatomy" is still in the top 20 but its audience had been divided by two in comparison to its glory days. However, I never read something about some budget problem.
Several actors were let go recently by the new head writer because she felt there was too many characters so it became impossible to write properly a storyline for each one.

As for "Desperate Housewives" the audience was not horrible but a 37th rank was not great either. Budgetary cuts were unavoidable for a 9th season and if the show had lost of its main female stars, it would have dropped like a stone.
 

Gabriel Maxwell

Telly Talk Addict
Messages
991
Reaction score
1,422
Location
Breezy fragrant vineyards of Falcon Crest
Member Since
July 13, 2008
"Grey's Anatomy" is still in the top 20 but its audience had been divided by two in comparison to its glory days. However, I never read something about some budget problem. Several actors were let go recently by the new head writer becaustwoe she felt there was too many characters so it became impossible to write properly a storyline for each one.
Bear in mind that it is irrelevant how a show's ratings today compare to its ratings in the past. And most certainly it no longer matters how they compare to shows on the other networks. If it did then a network like The CW or cable networks could instantly cancel all of their shows.

What matters is how a show compares to the other shows on the same network in the adults 18-49 demographic (alternatively some networks focus on 18-34, other on 25-54). "Grey's Anatomy" is the #1 drama and the #1 show overall on the ABC television network season to date. Being in the 15th season that's an incredible success.

I don't watch the show and I don't know how it is doing creatively, but in terms of the ratings the show's "glory days" haven't ended yet.

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/abc-2018-19-season-ratings/

As for "Desperate Housewives" the audience was not horrible but a 37th rank was not great either. Budgetary cuts were unavoidable for a 9th season and if the show had lost of its main female stars, it would have dropped like a stone.
Desperate Housewives was doing very well in its final season. It was the #3 drama and the #4 show overall on ABC. But it was beginning to fade and they made the right call to end it in 2012 while it was still pulling in respectable numbers.

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/abc-2011-2012-ratings/
 

colbyco

Telly Talk Active Member
Messages
293
Reaction score
289
Location
Germany
no proper end Soap Opera Digest 22.08.89.jpg
What the press said about the last season ....
 
Last edited:

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
1,980
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
And TVGUIDE called 'Who Killed Roger Grimes?' the best soap plotline of the 88/89 season.
Soap Opera Digest had also called DYNASTY "most improved show" of the prime time soaps for the year, and called its cliffhanger the best of the show in years, since "all events were born out of continuous plots except the balcony dive."
 

colbyco

Telly Talk Active Member
Messages
293
Reaction score
289
Location
Germany
A newspaper wrote about problems with Emma on the set and that PSM will come back. Emma went to court ...
Later David Paulsen really had the idea of bringing PSM back ...
Emma Tv Guide Artikel 9.1.88 5.jpg
 
Top