New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="valkaren" data-source="post: 187413" data-attributes="member: 314">I have always been fascinated by Season 13. Not just the content itself, but people's interpretations of it. Because KNOTS doesn't have as secure of an identity such as Dallas or Dynasty, it's always difficult to try and (as logically as possible, which is impossible considering this is all subjective) rank it alongside the other seasons. Is it best to compare it to the previous season? Its glory '80's years? Well, for a show that's reinventing itself yet again to fit in with it's '90s counterparts, it's a bit unfair to compare it to either, really. It was supposed to be a whole new chapter.Obviously, many people, including the own shows canon (producers and actors) call this the worst season of them all, but have always paused on that. It sometimes feels like an easy bandwagon to jump on. I find it a welcome improvement from the lazy last half of Season 12 and it seems like James you also have a fondness for some of the season. It's been a while sense I've watched it but from what I remember I felt refreshed by the sharpness coming back into some of the stories, and there was once again effort behind digging deeper into character motivation and providing a consistency of tone. I recall the references to Ewing Oil, the mention of Empire Valley, the 'back to basics' feel of some of the plotting. I loved Paige and Gary working together, Gary finding motivation with Tidal Energy (there was a clear 'anti-Dallas' character motivation that I wished was explored better), Karen racked with guilt over the car chase cliff-hanger from the previous season, and the heart-wrenching end of episode scene where Gary loses his ranch. Of course, I can never tell if it's because Season 12 deteriorated so badly that anything was a welcome refresher, or if there is actual quality there (I've never watched the show out of order).Sure, it often felt like fan-fiction, undoubtedly because the producers didn't really know what the show was supposed to be. And can you blame them? The previous 12 years have had an large number of tonal and format shifts, from '70-esque stand-alones, slow-burning character drama, over-the-top 80's soap opera, and a Desperate Housewives-y sort of dramedy.It's interesting, and I know James you do not reference the behind-the-scenes aspect of it all, that when Marcus comes back on board to the 'retooled' version, that the show once again wobbles a bit and struggles to find itself again until Season 14.I wonder what would have happened if Romano and his team had a bit more time to breathe to tell the stories that they wanted to tell. Jacobs said he pulled the show after he felt people weren't talking about it (some waitresses or something), but I believe that is because the viewers did not return for the 13th year, not because they tuned out during it. Of course, maybe I'm wrong. The seasonal rating showed a sharp drop from season 12. Did the year's ratings start in-line with Season 12 and then fall dramatically? Did the re-tooling disrupt the flow and shed more viewers? Or did the season never have the viewers to begin with? Of course, I know there were some macro factors (i.e. CBS was struggling as a network at the time, soaps were out of fashion), but it would be interesting if anyone with the episodic ratings could shed some light on that aspect as commercially these were core reasons behind the disruption this season faced and ultimately the year's legacy.</blockquote>

Verification: What month follows July?