That was just an unfortunate situation thrust upon Barbara Bel and Donna Reed. I'd love to know who signed off on that debacle. They should have been fired.
Just as the producers were quickly cutting back Donna Reed's scenes because those scenes weren't working, Lorimar extended her contract by two more years. So there seemed to be a lack of sufficient communication between somebody and somebody.
Even Howard Keel recommended Olson for Miss Ellie. But executives aren't always interested in "making it work" or avoiding disasters. (Why else would someone believe Emma Samms would be a natural re-cast for Pamela Sue Martin when numerous other actresses could hit a more similar note??)
Executives seem to make wildly destructive, high-handed decisions that wind up leaving the actors and sometimes writers to scramble around in an effort to fix it. The audience forced to endure it until their favorite show is gone, literally or essentially.
When one element slides, everything slides.
41 years ago, when I first heard in the press that they were re-casting Miss Ellie, I couldn't believe. And I
still can't believe it -- although, objectively, I realize what's going on in Ukraine & Gaza is worse.
At least, if they brought in Nancy Olson, as Keel suggested and had someone listened to him, then the damage might have been minimized. But Lorimar probably thought they wanted "a star" and Nancy Olson was just a working actress. (Even though Philip Capice had recently said he "hoped DALLAS would never resort to that kind of stunt casting" regarding some hiring choice DYNASTY had made).
But even in summer 1984, this decision would mark the-beginning-of-the-end for DALLAS -- even though everybody sensed that the series had just reached its mid-point. (Larry Hagman's real-life mom, Mary Martin, called the decision to re-cast Miss Ellie a "kooky" choice to occur "mid-way through" the program).
And then for the brass to choose an actress of totally different demeanor, countenance and appearance, when someone else is available who might make a better option is available, is just nuts.
But execs like to say "yes" and "no" with a wave of the hand. Damn the consequences they probably won't be impacted by at all, other than the need to offer some weak, disingenuous press statement later once there's some blow-up in the media. What do they care when they ruin the product? They're always off onto some new project anyway.
"Get that phony bitch out of my house...!"