Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Michael Torrance" data-source="post: 127590" data-attributes="member: 719">I understand, but that was the problem with THE COLBYS as a show, wasn&#039;t it, that there was suddenly a gazillion of them when for five seasons we were lead to believe there were only Jeff and Cecil. Would anyone, assuming it was a well written show, cared if the family Fallon married into was an ultra rich family where Jeff was not related? And Jeff could have relocated there on some DC or COLBYCO subsidiary wanting &quot;to make a fresh start after Fallon&#039;s death.&quot; The premise of the show was just implausible to begin with. Again, I go back to how refreshingly different KNOTS was compared to DALLAS as a spin-off, and of course how KNOTS fared not only better than THE COLBYS (because how hard was that) but actually even outlived DALLAS.But since the wise COLBYS team of the Shapiros and Pollocks decided to will them into existence, the characters then are judged by what we saw on the screen until then--which was nothing--not unlike Alexis in season two was judged against her complete absence in season one and supposedly before it.Continuity was a four letter word for DYNASTY. I mean, what was the name of Blake&#039;s mother? How did she die? What about that brief reconciliation which gave rise to Amanda after Alexis knew Blake had crippled Roger Grimes? Krystle and not knowing how to ride in DYNASTY only to find out later she grew up with horses on her grandmother&#039;s farm? And don&#039;t get me started on Paulsen and his rewrite of the Grimes story. Or the fact that he had Dex claim he had &quot;put the last eight years of his life on hold - so he could be there for Alexis&quot; in season nine, which at the time he said it would have meant he was following her even while she was still in Mexico.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Michael Torrance, post: 127590, member: 719"] I understand, but that was the problem with THE COLBYS as a show, wasn't it, that there was suddenly a gazillion of them when for five seasons we were lead to believe there were only Jeff and Cecil. Would anyone, assuming it was a well written show, cared if the family Fallon married into was an ultra rich family where Jeff was not related? And Jeff could have relocated there on some DC or COLBYCO subsidiary wanting "to make a fresh start after Fallon's death." The premise of the show was just implausible to begin with. Again, I go back to how refreshingly different KNOTS was compared to DALLAS as a spin-off, and of course how KNOTS fared not only better than THE COLBYS (because how hard was that) but actually even outlived DALLAS. But since the wise COLBYS team of the Shapiros and Pollocks decided to will them into existence, the characters then are judged by what we saw on the screen until then--which was nothing--not unlike Alexis in season two was judged against her complete absence in season one and supposedly before it. Continuity was a four letter word for DYNASTY. I mean, what was the name of Blake's mother? How did she die? What about that brief reconciliation which gave rise to Amanda after Alexis knew Blake had crippled Roger Grimes? Krystle and not knowing how to ride in DYNASTY only to find out later she grew up with horses on her grandmother's farm? And don't get me started on Paulsen and his rewrite of the Grimes story. Or the fact that he had Dex claim he had "put the last eight years of his life on hold - so he could be there for Alexis" in season nine, which at the time he said it would have meant he was following her even while she was still in Mexico. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =