Do you accept the TNT show?

[B.J. Ewing]

I do accept the show, even the change in character of Cliff. I don’t even have to know why he had become so evil, although some explanation would have been nice. What I don’t understand is why they rewrote history.

I’m ok with Carmen and her kids and Frank and whatever characters they invented. If only these people had come into the Ewing lives AFTER the original show ended. I mean, they only had to say Teresa’s sister Carmen had come to work at Southfork in the late 90’s and that it was THEN when John Ross and Christopher met Elena. The boys were just about 18, perfect timing for troubles in their love lives to begin.

And why not make Frank a man who Cliff met in the late 90’s? Why make him someone Cliff adopted in the 80s?

These are things that will bother me forever. It could have been so good if someone had just done his or her homework.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I do accept the show, even the change in character of Cliff. I don’t even have to know why he had become so evil, although some explanation would have been nice. What I don’t understand is why they rewrote history.

I’m ok with Carmen and her kids and Frank and whatever characters they invented. If only these people had come into the Ewing lives AFTER the original show ended. I mean, they only had to say Teresa’s sister Carmen had come to work at Southfork in the late 90’s and that it was THEN when John Ross and Christopher met Elena. The boys were just about 18, perfect timing for troubles in their love lives to begin.

And why not make Frank a man who Cliff met in the late 90’s? Why make him someone Cliff adopted in the 80s?

These are things that will bother me forever. It could have been so good if someone had just done his or her homework.

There's honestly no excuse for it except laziness. Cidre didn't care if the details made sense because she was more interested in telling the stories of the characters she created.

I'd love to see a new showrunner take over and butcher the backstory of her characters. Let's see how well that would sit with her and her sycophants.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Katzman was interested only in white men. Cidre was interested in underclass women.

How could it work?

 

[Toni]

Katzman was interested only in white men. Cidre was interested in underclass women.

How could it work?

Of course it couldn´t but...

There were reasons why the Dallas women eventually became the covers in all magazines during the 80's. A pretty face would have lasted maybe 6 months. They were "assets" as some of the cast and crew say, but without those great women, there would have been no such great men (see latter seasons). At least re the Capice-Katzman combo...

About Cidre, I´d say she identified herself with Ann: someone who takes over a place she doesn´t belong at and pretends to be the lady of the manor. Or maybe even the creaky matriarch who has secret vices...There was a lot of drug in "Cane" too. And the Ramoses might be underclass but were highbrow their own way ("my chili is the best", "I don´t want revenge, I want justice"... ). Please gimme a break, Cider House...

 

[tommie]

About Cidre, I´d say she identified herself with Ann: someone who takes over a place she doesn´t belong at and pretends to be the lady of the manor.

I thought it was pretty blatantly obvious that Elena was her Mary Sue character - someone who had to be propped up to all the other characters detriment.

It wouldn't surprise me if the way she handled Pambecca's character in season 3 was down to her eclipsing Elena in popularity.

 

[pete lashmar]

Have any of the original cast who appeared in TNT Dallas reappraised what they thought of it since their original backing?

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I totally agree with “Ultimately, it was David Jacobs story that she and even Leonard Katzman ended up bastardizing.” But I still can’t ignore what we saw asvit seens just disrespectful to the people I knew watching it. A continuing Dallas from here should ignore nothing and should be loyal mostly to Jacobs vision - that’s a winner and a money maker which needs to happen.

It occurred to me while I read this that Leonard Katzman spent a lot more of his life creating Dallas storylines and episodes than David Jacobs ever did. Jacobs gets credit for being the founder - he did invent it. But instead of sticking with it to see that things went the way he thought they should, instead of staying with Dallas because it was his creation and he was emotionally invested in seeing that it continued to tell the types of stories he wanted to tell, he left! He jumped ship to Knots Landing. So after doing that, after making the decision to spend his time and effort on another show, is it right to say Leonard Katzmann "bastardized " Dallas?

Even if we ignore the question of whether or not David Jacobs was more loyal to Knots than Dallas, and just look at it from the perspective of what Leonard Katzman achieved with Dallas along with Philip Caprice and everyone else who worked to make Dallas what it was, we're looking at an end result that resulted in Dallas becoming the most popular, highest rated Television drama of all time. If that's "bastardizing" dallas, then there are a ton of shows that would love to have their producer bastardize them that way!

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I thought it was pretty blatantly obvious that Elena was her Mary Sue character - someone who had to be propped up to all the other characters detriment.

Where does that expression "a Mary Sue character" come from? Just curious.

Anyway, when that happens, it means that someone with a lot of clout behind the scenes has some kind of personal stake in the character and they're gonna force it down the throats of the audience no matter what. They think they can force the audience to accept and even value the character. That's when someone else needs to step in, someone who doesn't have any personal stake in any one particular character so that it's possible to be more objective about the character and honestly assess whether the character should remain on the show any longer or if the character has already run its course.

Regarding the question asked by the this thread's title, my answer is....HELL NO!

I did appreciate getting to see Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy and Linda Gray working together again, and TNT Dallas failing certainly was not their fault. They all worked hard and turned in some excellent performances. It's particularly impressive that Larry Hagman did as much work as he did while sick with terminal cancer. It showed his dedication to making the show as good as he could.

The main problem I had with TNT Dallas is something I've write about in detail another threads in this sub-forum. In a nutshell, Cidre allowed or even ensured that they turn the characters into caricatures of their former selves, amplifying all evil or corrupt aspects of their personalities, and almost completely eliminating redeeming qualities. What a horrible idea!

I read an interview where Cidre said "there is no story in happiness." That's unfortunate that she sees the world that way but that's on her. If she wants to carry that attitude with her, that's her choice. It seemed she might very well have added: there is nothing interesting about redeeming qualities in human beings..Again, it's her right to view the world that way if she wants, but as long as she does, keep her the hell away from any TV show any movie, any project whatsoever that has the name "Dallas"!

She was never a Dallas an anyway. She was paid to watch the Dallas episodes so she'd be knowledgeable about the show and the stories which she was in charge of continuing. Well, she managed to somehow get through about 25% of the Dallas episodes and that's a conservative estimate because it's her own estimate. In reality she may not have even watched that many Dallas episodes!

When I think of the people on this forum who would have killed to have had her job as showrumner of the Dallas continuation, and instead of taking it seriously and watching every single episode ( something she was paid for and something that everyone here does for free, gladly, and with a lot of enjoyment) she watched just barely enough of it that she could fool some people into believing her heart was in the right place regarding honoring the Dallas legacy. It wasn't!

After she did that, she proceeded to do what I believe she intended to do from the beginning: Create her own show about Hispanic people and Hispanic culture and focus in on lots of the worst aspects of that i.e. the drug trade. hey, there's no story in happiness, right?

Then proceed to stamp the Dallas name on her project so that she'd be guaranteed a far greater audience tuning in for the debut of her new show. Then she could proceed to take credit for drawing 8 million viewers, approximately, in America alone. She underestimated th Dallas audience though.

That meant that after the second week's episode aired, she could also take the credit for the size of that audience, or more accurately, the blame. She lost 50% of the people who originally showed enough interest in a Dallas continuation to tune in and watch the first episode. Cider just didn't count on them thinking, "What's this? This isn't Dallas! It's got a few of the right actors in it, but except for that, it's a different show!

 

[Michael Torrance]

That meant that after the second week's episode aired, she could also take the credit for the size of that audience, or more accurately, the blame. She lost 50% of the people who originally showed enough interest in a Dallas continuation to tune in and watch the first episode. Cider just didn't count on them thinking, "What's this? This isn't Dallas! It's got a few of the right actors in it, but except for that, it's a different show!

The second episode was never going to have as many viewers as the first. When Lorimar Dallas ended its original run, it had dropped as low as 9.6 million viewers in a network, and weekly around 10.5. On CBS, not a cable channel, and two decades before the gazillion options we have today. The internet was not available to the public, and neither was Netflix and binge watching in any form (even DVD was not around!). Only the "Conundrum" episode drew in a record number of viewers (for the later seasons, not the show as a whole) at 22 million. So the first episode of the revival would have a lot of curiosity viewers same as the last episode. Dallas was always an older-skewing show audience-wise, and let's face it, 21 years after the Lorimar finale, a lot of that core audience was no longer around. And for the other audience, we all know that if they were in their 30s when the show ended and were in their 50s now, they were of no interest to advertisers. So, to play devil's advocate here--almost literally when one discusses Cidre--anyone in charge had to do something to pull in the audience TNT would want to keep the show running. As I said in other threads, Warner choosing TNT as the venue already locked Dallas in certain choices. Other characters would come in. I don't think Ann or the Rylands were a problem choice. In fact, Ann being married to Bobby was a nod to the original: here was another bride with a family at odds with the Ewings, and a secret (Emma) to boot. The Hispanic retcon was a huge mistake, from a show that has in its DNA fooling the viewers ("it was all a dream!"). As someone has mentioned, they could have been connected to the original Hispanic family of the show.

Season 1 had some flaws, but it was not beyond the pale. After 6.8 million viewers in the 2-hour premiere, the show lost half its audience, but it kept winning the night in cable ratings for TNT: the network was getting its money back. The season finale even jumped up to 4.29 million, so there was an audience hooked. In Season 2, the network made two important (and damaging) programming decisions: it moved the show from summer to winter, and from Wednesday to Monday. On top of that, the show lost Larry Hagman. Now there was a perfect storm even if one of the show's creators was at the helm. But Cidre decided that was the time to make the Ramos family front and center with Drew and the drilling rights, and also to twist the character of Cliff into a cartoon villain blowing up a rig with his pregnant daughter on it. That was the beginning of the end for the show, despite some leftover forward drive surviving from the "J.R.'s masterpiece" plot. That and the revelation about Pam's fate was enough to push the season finale to 2.99 million viewers from 1.94 million low post-rig explosion. The show would never see such numbers again.

By season 3, Cidre had given up all pretense this was still Dallas. With Nicolas Treviño, the Cartel, and Ryland becoming an undercover FBI agent (not even), the show was not able to fit the genre of soap or any other genre, for it was too ridiculous for a crime drama, TNT's most usual fare. The show's finale delivered the lowest ratings of the series, a damning viewer indictment, when even in season 2 the finale managed to give the show a bump. There was no further proof for TNT that this was a losing proposition. And while the network made some disastrous moves in season 2 (a double move), the only changes in season 3 came from Cidre.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Where does that expression "a Mary Sue character" come from?

Yeah. Is it Mary Lou's sister?

 

[Michael Torrance]

Where does that expression "a Mary Sue character" come from? Just curious.

Originally from a Trekkie who created such a character to make fun of other Trekkies.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Originally from a Trekkie who created such a character to make fun of other Trekkies.

From a Trekkie? So does a Mary Sue have pointy ears? Somehow I don't think the Dallas and Star Trek audiences would have much in common. I don't watch science fiction but I do remember that show being a big thing back in the 70s. I had an aunt who watched it when she was young. I really don't remember much about it other than the guy with the pointed ears and that they made several movies based on the series much later on. Most people here seem to think that nobody would want to take a chance on another Dallas continuation after the TNT thing. Maybe they could make some movies like Star Trek did. I read that at one point they were about to make a Dallas movie starring either Bruce Willis or John Travolta as JR and Jennifer Lopez as Sue Ellen. But then they made the TNT series instead.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I don't think Ann or the Rylands were a problem choice.

Ann was alright. Ryland, I forgot his first name but he was played by the same actor who was the violent guy JR met in the sanitarium, was interesting enough too. His mother was just bizarre though! I don't understand what they thought the appeal would have been with that character.

And for the other audience, we all know that if they were in their 30s when the show ended and were in their 50s now, they were of no interest to advertisers

That is what they say about advertisers, but I'd think people in their 50s, being at what is usually their peak of their careers and a higher salary than they had (for most people) in their 30s would be of some value to advertisers. They think we're too set in our ways though, so we already have our favorite brands and no advertisement will change our minds. We're not all that set in our ways though. It's an over-generalization.

Season 1 had some flaws, but it was not beyond the pale. After 6.8 million viewers in the 2-hour premiere, the show lost half its audience, but it kept winning the night in cable ratings for TNT: the network was getting its money back. The season finale even jumped up to 4.29 million, so there was an audience hooked.

Season one was better than what followed; I agree with that. I think they made a big mistake with the character of John Ross though. Right near the start of the first episode he said something very disrespectful about Miss Ellie and I really don't think the Dallas audience appreciated that. They made John Ross very hard to like. He was disrespectful to his father too. John Ross in TNT Dallas was kind of like a far less competent version of JR without the redeeming qualities or the charm.

I think they should have brought Lucas into the story. Casting an actor to play Lucas would have opened up so many more potential things they could have done with the show and more specifically, with the Ewings. In season 2 and especially in season 3 the Ewings didn't get as much air time as the Ramoses and other Mexicans did they? That was one of many things that showed how incredibly out of touch Cynthia Cidre was with what the audience wants from Dallas. The Ewings are the central family of the show. That 's so basic and yet she didn't get that. How did she get hired?

 

[stevew]

It occurred to me while I read this that Leonard Katzman spent a lot more of his life creating Dallas storylines and episodes than David Jacobs ever did. Jacobs gets credit for being the founder - he did invent it. But instead of sticking with it to see that things went the way he thought they should, instead of staying with Dallas because it was his creation and he was emotionally invested in seeing that it continued to tell the types of stories he wanted to tell, he left! He jumped ship to Knots Landing. So after doing that, after making the decision to spend his time and effort on another show, is it right to say Leonard Katzmann "bastardized " Dallas?

Even if we ignore the question of whether or not David Jacobs was more loyal to Knots than Dallas, and just look at it from the perspective of what Leonard Katzman achieved with Dallas along with Philip Caprice and everyone else who worked to make Dallas what it was, we're looking at an end result that resulted in Dallas becoming the most popular, highest rated Television drama of all time. If that's "bastardizing" dallas, then there are a ton of shows that would love to have their producer bastardize them that way!

I suppose you’re right and I’m not as familiar with who did what behind the scenes, but I’m looking at how a very good show, regardless of ratings, became a joke with things like the Dream Season and bringing on Donna Reed.

 

[stevew]

Where does that expression "a Mary Sue character" come from? Just curious.

Anyway, when that happens, it means that someone with a lot of clout behind the scenes has some kind of personal stake in the character and they're gonna force it down the throats of the audience no matter what. They think they can force the audience to accept and even value the character. That's when someone else needs to step in, someone who doesn't have any personal stake in any one particular character so that it's possible to be more objective about the character and honestly assess whether the character should remain on the show any longer or if the character has already run its course.

Regarding the question asked by the this thread's title, my answer is....HELL NO!

I did appreciate getting to see Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy and Linda Gray working together again, and TNT Dallas failing certainly was not their fault. They all worked hard and turned in some excellent performances. It's particularly impressive that Larry Hagman did as much work as he did while sick with terminal cancer. It showed his dedication to making the show as good as he could.

The main problem I had with TNT Dallas is something I've write about in detail another threads in this sub-forum. In a nutshell, Cidre allowed or even ensured that they turn the characters into caricatures of their former selves, amplifying all evil or corrupt aspects of their personalities, and almost completely eliminating redeeming qualities. What a horrible idea!

I read an interview where Cidre said "there is no story in happiness." That's unfortunate that she sees the world that way but that's on her. If she wants to carry that attitude with her, that's her choice. It seemed she might very well have added: there is nothing interesting about redeeming qualities in human beings..Again, it's her right to view the world that way if she wants, but as long as she does, keep her the hell away from any TV show any movie, any project whatsoever that has the name "Dallas"!

She was never a Dallas an anyway. She was paid to watch the Dallas episodes so she'd be knowledgeable about the show and the stories which she was in charge of continuing. Well, she managed to somehow get through about 25% of the Dallas episodes and that's a conservative estimate because it's her own estimate. In reality she may not have even watched that many Dallas episodes!

When I think of the people on this forum who would have killed to have had her job as showrumner of the Dallas continuation, and instead of taking it seriously and watching every single episode ( something she was paid for and something that everyone here does for free, gladly, and with a lot of enjoyment) she watched just barely enough of it that she could fool some people into believing her heart was in the right place regarding honoring the Dallas legacy. It wasn't!

After she did that, she proceeded to do what I believe she intended to do from the beginning: Create her own show about Hispanic people and Hispanic culture and focus in on lots of the worst aspects of that i.e. the drug trade. hey, there's no story in happiness, right?

Then proceed to stamp the Dallas name on her project so that she'd be guaranteed a far greater audience tuning in for the debut of her new show. Then she could proceed to take credit for drawing 8 million viewers, approximately, in America alone. She underestimated th Dallas audience though.

That meant that after the second week's episode aired, she could also take the credit for the size of that audience, or more accurately, the blame. She lost 50% of the people who originally showed enough interest in a Dallas continuation to tune in and watch the first episode. Cider just didn't count on them thinking, "What's this? This isn't Dallas! It's got a few of the right actors in it, but except for that, it's a different show!

I agree with everything you say.

Unfortunately I think it could have still worked it it was Dallas. First we had to see the same set - the house decorated differently but structurally the same. Second we had to see a logical continuation, not axe out the movies, but actually reference original characters and stories like Sue Ellen “Lockwood,” and not recreate major pieces of history, the “Ramos’s.” Then she was good to go - create the next generation and her own story. She could have had Carmen as Teresa’s sister. Focused on John Ross and Cally’s son - thereby creating her own character instead of using Christopher. Use Bobby, JR and Sue Ellen as needed to keep pulling people back to the original along with a whole bunch of original guess stars. Turn Harris Ryland into Harris Wendell, Jeremy’s son and a logical rival family replacing the Barnes. Minor changes would have given her what she wanted.

A major change in my opinion would have been to fix Elena. End the idea she’s a victim but that she’s dirty as anyone else. Truly make her strong not some weak, cry baby who justifies her wrong doing.

 

[Michael Torrance]

That is what they say about advertisers, but I'd think people in their 50s, being at what is usually their peak of their careers and a higher salary than they had (for most people) in their 30s would be of some value to advertisers. They think we're too set in our ways though, so we already have our favorite brands and no advertisement will change our minds. We're not all that set in our ways though. It's an over-generalization.

They are always calibrating who the target audience is. They customize for each venue. CBS has, for decades, been an older-skewing network, that is why the general audience numbers there may be very high and a show can still be cancelled. They also have their own metrics for TNT, and the measure was how Dallas was doing with that audience, which is why I said that Warner locked in the show to certain parameters when they chose TNT than, say, the CW (both their venues).

As for the over 50 audience, I am sure not every single person fits the profile, same as not every single 33-year old fits their profile, but the vast majority do. As generations and habits change (a lot less people marry and have families now) these slowly change as well, adapting to the evolving reality.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It occurred to me while I read this that Leonard Katzman spent a lot more of his life creating Dallas storylines and episodes than David Jacobs ever did. Jacobs gets credit for being the founder - he did invent it. But instead of sticking with it to see that things went the way he thought they should, instead of staying with Dallas because it was his creation and he was emotionally invested in seeing that it continued to tell the types of stories he wanted to tell, he left! He jumped ship to Knots Landing. So after doing that, after making the decision to spend his time and effort on another show, is it right to say Leonard Katzmann "bastardized " Dallas?

Even if we ignore the question of whether or not David Jacobs was more loyal to Knots than Dallas, and just look at it from the perspective of what Leonard Katzman achieved with Dallas along with Philip Caprice and everyone else who worked to make Dallas what it was, we're looking at an end result that resulted in Dallas becoming the most popular, highest rated Television drama of all time. If that's "bastardizing" dallas, then there are a ton of shows that would love to have their producer bastardize them that way!

David Jacobs has said that if he himself had been the DALLAS showrunner instead of Katzman, it would have likely never become the international smash that it was. If Katzman "bastardized" DALLAS, it was in the later seasons when he lazily decided to take the show from high drama to groan-inducing self-parody.

Why Uncle Lenny did that is anybody's guess. But Patrick Duffy has admitted that they "lost objectivity" about what qualifies as a good story, and also conceded that Cidre's nuDALLAS felt "less pure" than what many fans had wanted.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

As generations and habits change (a lot less people marry and have families now) these slowly change as well, adapting to the evolving reality.

Do you think less people are having families all over the world or just in the U.S?

Why Uncle Lenny did that is anybody's guess. But Patrick Duffy has admitted that they "lost objectivity" about what qualifies as a good story,

I think they probably slowly lost objectivity. A lot of the storylines after season 8 and especially in seasons 13 and 14 are things that had they been suggested back in season 3 or 4 probably would have just been met with laughter. As early as season 9, I found some things completely out of character with what the show had been in the early 80s. The whole Anjelica Nero storyline, especially her telling JR that Jack was Dimitri Marinos's and that they were doing this oil deal so it could look like Jack had struck it rich on his own was just so outlandish. That may have been the first of the "self-parody storylines." That storyline was almost as silly as the clothes Anjelica wore.

I found seasons 9 through 12 a mix of good and bad, but 13 and 14 had more bad than good. James and Michelle got so much screen time that it was obvious they were trying way too hard to attract a younger audience.

 

[Michael Torrance]

Do you think less people are having families all over the world or just in the U.S?

As I've read it, it is all over the Western world, so Europe is certainly included

 

[Frank Underwood]

David Jacobs has said that if he himself had been the DALLAS showrunner instead of Katzman, it would have likely never become the international smash that it was. If Katzman "bastardized" DALLAS, it was in the later seasons when he lazily decided to take the show from high drama to groan-inducing self-parody.

I saw an interview with Steve Kanaly where he basically said the show was more intelligent in the early days when Jacobs was around. Jacobs has said on several occasions that he wanted to do art, Mike Filerman wanted to do trash, and between them they did television. I get the impression that Katzman leaned more towards Filerman's point of view. Of course, the Paulsen/Katzman era is arguably the best Dallas ever got. But the Lakin/Katzman era is absolute garbage. Katzman turned Dallas into a parody, while Cidre turned it into a crime show.

Why Uncle Lenny did that is anybody's guess. But Patrick Duffy has admitted that they "lost objectivity" about what qualifies as a good story, and also conceded that Cidre's nuDALLAS felt "less pure" than what many fans had wanted.

Duffy also called out the drug cartel storyline and Miss Ellie giving half of Southfork to John Ross, albeit in a wishy washy way.