TNT revived Dallas for a 2012–14 series. Would you revisit it again?

[Angela Chilling]

It they were going to revive Dallas again they need to move on from the original cast. There are only so many times you can see Sue Ellen get drunk and Bobby without JR to fight with is kind of a boring character. Where TNT got it wrong was doing it as a continuation of the old series and being something new at the same time. They should have done one or the other but not both.

I don't see why a Dallas revival even has to focus on the Ewing family because most of those actors aren't with us any more.

 

[darkshadows38]

i think they need to finish off the last Dallas before they start a new one, if they do that and than one day in the future start a complete new show than don't have it be about the Ewing's at all but a different Family. but they need to finish off with maybe a mini series 1st before they do that so they can finish off the story they cut short on telling 1st. with an actual ending and no clue to another tv movie of any kind than ending the Original's casts time on the show or shows for good.

 

[Jabari Lamar]

It they were going to revive Dallas again they need to move on from the original cast. There are only so many times you can see Sue Ellen get drunk and Bobby without JR to fight with is kind of a boring character. Where TNT got it wrong was doing it as a continuation of the old series and being something new at the same time. They should have done one or the other but not both.

I agree with you for the most part. If we're discussing a second continuation then it's like I said before, Some remaining cast members like Patrick Duffy and Linda Gray can have a place in the show, but they shouldn't be the leads. TNT's mistake was in never fully embracing John Ross and Christopher as the focus. Definitely by season 3, once Larry died, it was time for the younger cast to step up.

I don't see why a Dallas revival even has to focus on the Ewing family because most of those actors aren't with us any more.

I'll disagree with that. If it's not the Ewings, then there's no need to call it Dallas.

 

[Jabari Lamar]

i think they need to finish off the last Dallas before they start a new one,

While us older fans would, of course like that, there's likely just not an audience big enough to justify such a thing.

 

[darkshadows38]

i dunno they have brought back old shows where i didn't think an audience would watch them at all

 

[the-lost-son]

While us older fans would, of course like that, there's likely just not an audience big enough to justify such a thing.

In some series you can feel a general direction and drive towards a specific ending. (Breaking bad, Revenge, even Friends.)

That's why Swan Song is so popular among us. After years of separation there is a sweet reunion of Bobby&Pam (only to be spoiled shorty after, what a Rollercoaster.)

TNT Dallas(especially season 3) felt without any direction and long-term planning. Hardly anybody remembers Nicolas Trevino, Elena's pregnancy, JR's having a daughter or Judith pairing with JohnRoss - or cares a great deal about that. I don't like open endings, but a closure for these open plots probably doesn't address a substantial audience.

I always liked the Ewing B-B-Q's and I would have loved one to close the show with an impressive final shot of Southfork. But therefore you need some familiar faces. And with only Bobby&Sue Ellen left, it's for the best to leave it as it was.

 

[darkshadows38]

is it really only down to those 2?

 

[the-lost-son]

is it really only down to those 2?

I think most viewers only remember the Dallas characters of Jr&Sue Ellen, Bobby&Pam and Miss Ellie.
There have been so many shows over the last 40 years. Except the die-hard fans people probably have a hard time to remember Lucy, Ray, Clayton...

There are plenty actors of beloved characters still among us. But it's probably easier to write a new series instead of explaining to the audience who Mitch, Afton, Katherine, let alone Michelle, Cally or James are.

I watched the complete series, but then TNT Dallas included the offspring of Carter McCay - I didn't know what to think of it. I frankly don't remember anything regarding the character (except Carter's arguments with JR, his involvement in WestStar and the ranch war) . So I assume, first-time viewers or less enthuastic Dallas fans even had a harder time to connect with the grandson of Carter. .

 

[darkshadows38]

i dunno there have been shows that have during it's run anyways had characters leave that i just plain forgot about Grey's Anatomy is one that has had many cast changes and when they come back i plump forgot they even existed! and it's not that they were bad characters it's just simply that there are so many seasons of that show now that i've only seen certain seasons once as i only own seasons 1-10 thus far on dvd. i really need to get season 11 to Present and i will at some point.

as for your theory i dunno i think there are a lot of newer fans out there who have discovered Dallas in reruns or TNT Dallas and they discovered those characters, on the Conners they i saw an article but i really haven't watched it they killed off Molly and that's one character that only did one episode of the Original show on it's sequel they gave her cancer apparently, and i had to think about who she was at first but i did remember her as i haven't watched Roseanne in a long time.

so if they ever do bring back Dallas and you have more new fans to it they no doubt will go and find the Original show if it picks up where it left off that is. if ya really think about it both shows have done forgettable characters. well that's how i look at it anyways

 

[tommie]

I think most viewers only remember the Dallas characters of Jr&Sue Ellen, Bobby&Pam and Miss Ellie.
There have been so many shows over the last 40 years. Except the die-hard fans people probably have a hard time to remember Lucy, Ray, Clayton...

There are plenty actors of beloved characters still among us. But it's probably easier to write a new series instead of explaining to the audience who Mitch, Afton, Katherine, let alone Michelle, Cally or James are.

I watched the complete series, but then TNT Dallas included the offspring of Carter McCay - I didn't know what to think of it. I frankly don't remember anything regarding the character (except Carter's arguments with JR, his involvement in WestStar and the ranch war) . So I assume, first-time viewers or less enthuastic Dallas fans even had a harder time to connect with the grandson of Carter. .

Yes, and I think this is what many fans forget - any revival has to be easy enough for casual and new viewers to quickly connect the dots without needing ten minute recaps about who's who and how they relate to each other.

That's why I think David Jacobs' idea about Christopher being the "bad" one and John Ross being the "good" one was right. It makes the character motivations easy to understand - Christopher being adopted and feeling like he's not a legitimate heir to the Ewing throne is an easy motivation to get why he'd be scheming. John Ross on the other hand would end up trying to prove that he's not awful like his father (one of the most famous bastards in television history). Take it from there and go.

 

[thomaswak]

Yes, and I think this is what many fans forget - any revival has to be easy enough for casual and new viewers to quickly connect the dots without needing ten minute recaps about who's who and how they relate to each other.

That's why I think David Jacobs' idea about Christopher being the "bad" one and John Ross being the "good" one was right. It makes the character motivations easy to understand - Christopher being adopted and feeling like he's not a legitimate heir to the Ewing throne is an easy motivation to get why he'd be scheming. John Ross on the other hand would end up trying to prove that he's not awful like his father (one of the most famous bastards in television history). Take it from there and go.

This. Exactly.
Also, the dynamic before sons and fathers would have been much more interesting. Bobby trying as hard as he could to put his "evil" son in the right way. And JR being almost ashamed to have such a "good" son, seing that as a weakness.

Well, we all know that Cynthia Cidre was no David Jacob. And she unfortunately proved it.

 

[the-lost-son]

Yes, and I think this is what many fans forget - any revival has to be easy enough for casual and new viewers to quickly connect the dots without needing ten minute recaps about who's who and how they relate to each other.

That's why I think David Jacobs' idea about Christopher being the "bad" one and John Ross being the "good" one was right. It makes the character motivations easy to understand - Christopher being adopted and feeling like he's not a legitimate heir to the Ewing throne is an easy motivation to get why he'd be scheming. John Ross on the other hand would end up trying to prove that he's not awful like his father (one of the most famous bastards in television history). Take it from there and go.

Couldn't agree more.

Christopher would have been the ideal schemer/villain - the biological son of Kristen and Jeff Faraday. To make him a white knight made him superfluous, because Bobby got that corner covered.

We could have gotten complex character driven storylines with JR/John Ross and Bobby/Christopher being less alike.

 

[Barbara On A Broomstick]

I'll disagree with that. If it's not the Ewings, then there's no need to call it Dallas.

I agree, thats why I disliked TNT so much, full of people we had never heard of before and didnt care a jot about either

 

[tommie]

Couldn't agree more.

Christopher would have been the ideal schemer/villain - the biological son of Kristen and Jeff Faraday. To make him a white knight made him superfluous, because Bobby got that corner covered.

We could have gotten complex character driven storylines with JR/John Ross and Bobby/Christopher being less alike.

I think there's another aspect of it - it would've naturally brought up the fact that Christopher was adopted without it seeming like a forced recap situation. And that's sort of the issue with having a long history of a show to begin with - I get that people want DALLAS history referenced, but there's very few instances that a lot of that stuff wouldn't feel forced to bring up, but at the same time the issue with reboots/revivals is that you can't entirely ignore it. So by setting up a situation where the conflict exists because of the history is a good way to "solve" the problem.

If Christopher is a Bobby clone and have a great relationship with him, then there's no reason for him to bring up the past. On the other hand, Christopher having mixed feelings about his heritage and being adopted would make it come up in a natural way.
If John Ross's intent in life is to be like his father, then there's no reason for him to ever bring up that JR was kind of horrible. The reason why the "kitchen scene" with John Ross / Sue Ellen was one of the most effective scenes in TNTDALLAS is because it was built in history, but at the same time it's wasn't a scene that was hard to understand if you had never seen LORIMAR DALLAS.

 

[the-lost-son]

I think there's another aspect of it - it would've naturally brought up the fact that Christopher was adopted without it seeming like a forced recap situation. And that's sort of the issue with having a long history of a show to begin with - I get that people want DALLAS history referenced, but there's very few instances that a lot of that stuff wouldn't feel forced to bring up, but at the same time the issue with reboots/revivals is that you can't entirely ignore it. So by setting up a situation where the conflict exists because of the history is a good way to "solve" the problem.

If Christopher is a Bobby clone and have a great relationship with him, then there's no reason for him to bring up the past. On the other hand, Christopher having mixed feelings about his heritage and being adopted would make it come up in a natural way.
If John Ross's intent in life is to be like his father, then there's no reason for him to ever bring up that JR was kind of horrible. The reason why the "kitchen scene" with John Ross / Sue Ellen was one of the most effective scenes in TNTDALLAS is because it was built in history, but at the same time it's wasn't a scene that was hard to understand if you had never seen LORIMAR DALLAS.

I couldn't have described it any better.

Lorimar Dallas managed to reference history in a natural way. When Miss Ellie was insecure about her marriage to Clayton, they referenced to her mastectomy +4years ago. When Wes Parmalee had an argument with Bobby/Jr, they made a reference to the hunting trip +8years ago.

I think one of the only times it didn't work, was SueEllen's flashbacks during her movie production.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

So I assume, first-time viewers or less enthuastic Dallas fans even had a harder time to connect with the grandson of Carter. .

I assume this was one of those easter eggs that old-time Dallas fans would enjoy.

That's why I think David Jacobs' idea about Christopher being the "bad" one and John Ross being the "good" one was right. It makes the character motivations easy to understand - Christopher being adopted and feeling like he's not a legitimate heir to the Ewing throne is an easy motivation to get why he'd be scheming. John Ross on the other hand would end up trying to prove that he's not awful like his father (one of the most famous bastards in television history). Take it from there and go.

But Christopher was oftentimes far more unlikeable than John Ross, always the first one to criticize his cousin (maybe to compensate for the fact that he wasn't a real Ewing), while John Ross was trying to detach himself from the image of JR, but often failed.
Neither of these characters were very archetypal and it made for very unpredictable drama. They were all kind of SueEllenfied.

 

[tommie]

Neither of these characters were very archetypal and it made for very unpredictable drama. They were all kind of SueEllenfied.

Is that a good thing?

Because if you feel like a character can and will do anything that makes it seem like they're not actually characters, they're just plot devices. And it also takes away any shock value of them doing something that you wouldn't expect (since you expect them to do anything). Those sort of characters tend to end up working better as bit part characters anyway and devices to pull a stalled storyline forward, like Gary on Lorimar Dallas - I always liked the thought of him making JR incredibly nervous because JR couldn't predict how he'd act (unlike Bobby). Of course, when Gary went off to Knots Landing they had to make him a consistent character with his own motivations (even if JR on Dallas still didn't understand them).

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Because if you feel like a character can and will do anything that makes it seem like they're not actually characters

I guess that's where the various storylines come in, and steer the characters into directions they had not foreseen or desired.
In essence, every soap character is capable of doing everything, including being likeable or unlikeable. It's not that Bobby was always 100% perfect in old Dallas, but the dilemmas and choices they have to make is what makes it so captivating.
Cliff Barnes, Nicholas Trevino and mother & son Ryland were the wicked villains that we could love to loathe, but for Christopher, John Ross and Pamela it was an ongoing struggle. Because greed and loyalty don't mix very well...isn't that what Dallas is all about?

 

[tommie]

I guess that's where the various storylines come in, and steer the characters into directions they had not foreseen or desired.
In essence, every soap character is capable of doing everything, including being likeable or unlikeable. It's not that Bobby was always 100% perfect in old Dallas, but the dilemmas and choices they have to make is what makes it so captivating.
Cliff Barnes, Nicholas Trevino and mother & son Ryland were the wicked villains that we could love to loathe, but for Christopher, John Ross and Pamela it was an ongoing struggle. Because greed and loyalty don't mix very well...isn't that what Dallas is all about?

But the point is that those struggles have to be recognizable - or at least somewhat easily explained - to a new viewer just walking in. They'll have to quickly manage to connect the dots without having to have a heavy recap on what's happening.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

I'm gunna frack on Southfork!
Over my dead body!

Conflict -> continuation of conflict -> other characters get involved -> confusion, misinterpretation, backstabbing, love & adultery -> complicating the conflict.
It's Dallas not rocket science, all you need to do is keep watching. Because something new and exciting could happen in the next episode.