- Awards
- 20
That was the frustrating thing about it. All the changes could have been explained in-story. Ignorance or just laziness?
Is this for Real
- Thread starter Ray_Krebbs
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
- Awards
- 5
I would argue both, though take the 'ance off ignorance as the TNT showrunner was informed by the big brass to ignore the reunion movies as though they didn't exist. That's like ignoring the dream season but it's part of Dallas folklore...it exists. We somehow have to acknowledge it but not dwell on it.
The laziness creeps in when a showrunner fails to watch Dallas in its entirety; including Dallas: The Early Years and obviously Lorimar Dallas. Attempting to retcon new characters into Dallas history is bound to frustrate old fans, which it did.
Lorimar Dallas wasn't perfect in tripping up on it's own history but TNT Dallas magnified how utterly inept a continuation can be when history is ignored or twisted to fit an agenda.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 27
They had to create a next generation world for the next generation Ewings therefore it's not strange to see a lot of new faces.
Well, okay, some of the other Lorimar babies could have been shoehorned into the story but apart from their names we don't know anything about them, or why they should have relocated to Dallas.
I don't know if these child characters showed up in the TV movies or that they were aware of the Southfork Ewings.
Carmen or Teresa, it doesn't make much difference imo.
And what was the "agenda"? A darker tone? Yeah, that reminded me of the early episodes of The Yellow Rose.
The return of James Beaumont would have been nice, yes. I agree.
Well, okay, some of the other Lorimar babies could have been shoehorned into the story but apart from their names we don't know anything about them, or why they should have relocated to Dallas.
I don't know if these child characters showed up in the TV movies or that they were aware of the Southfork Ewings.
Carmen or Teresa, it doesn't make much difference imo.
And what was the "agenda"? A darker tone? Yeah, that reminded me of the early episodes of The Yellow Rose.
The return of James Beaumont would have been nice, yes. I agree.
- Awards
- 21
Jesus Christ.
- Awards
- 6
Not sure I would be able to buy the Ramos family being related to Jesus Christ.
- Awards
- 21
People write what they know.
The original DALLAS was made by white men who were interested in white men. nuDALLAS' Cynthia Cidre was an hispanic woman who was interested in that -- but apparently thought the cooks were interchangable.
Internalized anti-Latinism??
- Awards
- 12
I’ve long felt they were likely related to Jesus the butler..
(who was well-known to be one of the finest vacuumers in all of Texas)
- Awards
- 27
Your concern is simply overwhelming, my dear.
- Awards
- 6
Well, I never actually though Teresa and Raoul could possibly be the ONLY servants in the South Fork home. Not all that believable that they did ALL the cooking and cleaning alone. Maybe they were the supervisors and Carmen never came out of the kitchen?
- Awards
- 21
Servants also have a caste system.
- Awards
- 27
And there's no difference between not-having-seen Teresa's children and not-having-seen Carmen's children.
You can hardly call Teresa a "character" in classic Dallas and to make her a character in new Dallas would still look like a retcon regardless of any children.
Maybe John Ross and Christopher's childhood playmates should have been never-seen-before-Punk Anderson's grandchildren, I don't know, but they had to pluck these characters from somewhere to make the lives of the next generation Ewings look more intertwined with place and history and themselves. To tell the story that they wanted to tell rather than going through the wish list of The Fanbase.
And maybe it would have looked better if the writing had been more "traditional Dallas" but that's only speculation, and then you also have to consider that they could have cast different actors in the alternative roles as requested by the fanbase. I like the cast that we actually got in new Dallas.
- Awards
- 5
Being one of those fans I would have preferred to see legacy characters of Lucas, Margaret and potentially Cally's child as their story was established and could have been utilized for drama. Creating new characters like Carmen, Elena, Drew then forcing them into Dallas history was an error.
The biggest blunder was the character Frank Ashkani. Supposedly Cliff adopted this kid off the streets of Islamabad some 30 years prior. Now if we subtract 30 years when TNT Dallas debuted in 2012 that makes Cliff adopting Frank around 1982. This is the era of the battle for Ewing Oil after the death of Jock and Cliff was in the thick of it.
Well Southfork has been compared to the Tardis. Could explain a lot.
- Awards
- 24
So this was Cliff´s way to overcome his depression and attempted suicide. To adopt a boy he´d never bring to Dallas. Maybe he was from "Mercenaries without Frontiers"?
- Awards
- 24
- Awards
- 27
How much story was established? That they were born?
As I mentioned before I don't know (remember) if their lives progressed in the Dallas movies.
It's true that the name alone would still be an official link to classic Dallas but without actually knowing them it would be a technicality rather than an on-screen emotional connection.
I think the idea that all this would make a HUGE difference in terms of plotting is a bit overrated. My guess is that they would be quite similar to the new characters created for new Dallas.
And who knows, maybe John Ross' new sister would be Margaret, rewritten as JR and Donna's love child (!!)
- Awards
- 21
Folks can, and should, have varying opinions on just about anything. It's healthy and makes for good discussion, those differing viewpoints -- even if you don't entirely agree with them -- still valuable because they can bring up interesting specifics and details that one might never have really thought about previously... But sometimes you get into a strange arena where intelligent people -- particularly intelligent people -- decide to take a position and espouse a perspective that they realize is defenseless and even ridiculous, elaborating on it elaborately and rationalizing endlessly as if they're matriculating Logic in a university setting (where the course trains you, as if you're a defense lawyer, to fervently and effectively argue a legal point the student realizes consciously is untrue but must learn to sell nonetheless, honing their skills of clever debate for its own sake). But elsewhere, in other venues when this happens, you begin to realize (sometimes quickly, sometimes not) that, to them, it's not just an opinion they sincerely hold; it's passive-aggression, a kind of control issue. And honest exchange -- even an alternative one offering unique points that might be a little shaky -- isn't really possible... It's a grey area, but sometimes it's not. And it's best not to engage.
I wonder if Harve Smithfield ever had this problem. And maybe it's why Scotty Demarest usually lost his cases. And how did Lou Rosen fare?
I wonder if Harve Smithfield ever had this problem. And maybe it's why Scotty Demarest usually lost his cases. And how did Lou Rosen fare?
- Awards
- 27
^
I don't understand this post. Who and what are you talking about?
There's nothing wrong with the polite discussion at hand. There's no trolling and nobody feels angry or insulted. If that was the case then I'm sure a moderator would have stepped in.
Of course it will be your decision whether or not you want to be part of the discussion, but this self-imposed authority on the psychology of other forum members - talk about cookbookery 101 - does nothing to enhance the discussion itself. It only makes it unnecessarily personal.
Now, let's say you were talking about me, for example.
Would I consider my perspective defenceless? Yes, I would, because I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, I don't expect to win. But is that really the only goal in a discussion?
I think it's merely yet another opportunity to talk about DALLAS old and new because we like to do that, repetition notwithstanding. If anything, it's what keeps these kind of discussion forums relevant and alive.
Personally, I don't disagree with the negative emotions surrounding the "new developments" in TNT DALLAS - we feel what we feel - but sometimes I like to point out that the reasoning for those negative emotions, especially the comments about the showrunner, isn't always cut and dried.
If you consider new Dallas a straightfoward continuation - as in: "previously, 14 years ago on Dallas" - then it's going to be frustration galore.
I think it's partially a sequel (and I honestly believe there's plenty of classic Dallas in it) and partially a new and modern interpretation of Dallas (because it's the John Ross & Christopher show).
So, more like a modern Dallas soap opera rather than a continuation of a Dallas from a different zeitgeist. And I still find it absolutely exhilarating to think that it actually happened. And I feel exactly the same about DYNASTY II (The Colbys, not CWDynasty) not to mention the fact that they released it on DVD.
It's just...mind-blowing.
I don't understand this post. Who and what are you talking about?
There's nothing wrong with the polite discussion at hand. There's no trolling and nobody feels angry or insulted. If that was the case then I'm sure a moderator would have stepped in.
Of course it will be your decision whether or not you want to be part of the discussion, but this self-imposed authority on the psychology of other forum members - talk about cookbookery 101 - does nothing to enhance the discussion itself. It only makes it unnecessarily personal.
Now, let's say you were talking about me, for example.
Would I consider my perspective defenceless? Yes, I would, because I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, I don't expect to win. But is that really the only goal in a discussion?
I think it's merely yet another opportunity to talk about DALLAS old and new because we like to do that, repetition notwithstanding. If anything, it's what keeps these kind of discussion forums relevant and alive.
Personally, I don't disagree with the negative emotions surrounding the "new developments" in TNT DALLAS - we feel what we feel - but sometimes I like to point out that the reasoning for those negative emotions, especially the comments about the showrunner, isn't always cut and dried.
If you consider new Dallas a straightfoward continuation - as in: "previously, 14 years ago on Dallas" - then it's going to be frustration galore.
I think it's partially a sequel (and I honestly believe there's plenty of classic Dallas in it) and partially a new and modern interpretation of Dallas (because it's the John Ross & Christopher show).
So, more like a modern Dallas soap opera rather than a continuation of a Dallas from a different zeitgeist. And I still find it absolutely exhilarating to think that it actually happened. And I feel exactly the same about DYNASTY II (The Colbys, not CWDynasty) not to mention the fact that they released it on DVD.
It's just...mind-blowing.
- Awards
- 21
Lawyers. I was talking about lawyers!
- Awards
- 6
I think at this point, I'd be far more interested in a DALLAS prequel when Jock, Digger and Ellie were all still single and Jock and Digger were wildcatting together. At least that way, Duffy couldn't ruin the show by sucking so far up the producer's butt, he becomes the star. He can't play young Jock so would have to be Grandpa Southworth or Grandpa Ewing...not a main character.
Duffy and Cidre's apparent fascination with him...were really the major flaws of the reboot. In no real world where you want a successful show for a younger generation, do you allow Duffy to have his young, beefcake son killed off for his own screentime to take over...even usurping John Ross's.
All the while we have to hear Duffy's incessant and completely made up ramblings about the Three Musketeers...all for one and one for all, blah, blah, blah....while Linda Gray had to fight her own fight for more storyline...smh.
Duffy and Cidre's apparent fascination with him...were really the major flaws of the reboot. In no real world where you want a successful show for a younger generation, do you allow Duffy to have his young, beefcake son killed off for his own screentime to take over...even usurping John Ross's.
All the while we have to hear Duffy's incessant and completely made up ramblings about the Three Musketeers...all for one and one for all, blah, blah, blah....while Linda Gray had to fight her own fight for more storyline...smh.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 12
Smithfield was the one who made the call to bring in the legendary Demarest to defend Jock against murder charges brought by Cliff Barnes and the resolute Fenton Washburn, but we the viewers were sadly deprived of the spectacle of a legal super-summit.. Harv and Scotty in the same scene may have, in fact, quite literally caused TVs to explode with greatness.
Anita Smithfield (like a season 12-14 pun, but more clever, not that that’s a high bar to clear) was maybe not the greatest “next generation legal superstar”, but she could have been reworked a bit for New Dallas.. throw in Scotty Demarest Jr., and who needs the Ramoses at all?!?
Anita Smithfield (like a season 12-14 pun, but more clever, not that that’s a high bar to clear) was maybe not the greatest “next generation legal superstar”, but she could have been reworked a bit for New Dallas.. throw in Scotty Demarest Jr., and who needs the Ramoses at all?!?
Last edited: