Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarky Oracle!" data-source="post: 440779" data-attributes="member: 57984">You&#039;ve really got to specify the periods of the two shows to which you&#039;re referring.One of the complaints some viewers had about DALLAS&#039; early era was that it was too slow (the season which opened with &#039;WSJR?&#039; was sometimes like watching paint dry -- made worse by a repetitive stock music score they were forced to use during a composers&#039; strike). And the DYNASTY producers bragged -- correctly, at the time -- that their show moved more quickly and &quot;respected the audiences&#039; intelligent,&quot; but that point was made just after Season 2.But that all changed after the 1981-1982 season: DALLAS then sped up (in a good way) and DYNASTY started to ramble because they were no longer really telling their stories.DYNASTY&#039;s &quot;intimacy&quot; moments became shlock-talk, pretentious filler-exchanges with no real point to them. And DALLAS didn&#039;t do that, being more legitimately character-based most of the time.Yes, the DYNASTY&#039;s dialogue from Seasons 1, 2 &amp; 9 did do the things you describe. But during Seasons 3 thru 7, the conversations would always quickly swerve off from the original topic into that &quot;I&#039;m-your-mother/I&#039;m-your-father/why-won&#039;t-you-share-your-pain-with-me??&quot;malarkey because the writers were disinterested in with their own plotlines and no longer knew how to write the series.Rita Lakin, a good writer and the story editor from Season 7 where she toiled unhappily, pointed out self-evidently that DYNASTY&#039;s Pollock duo, who ran the show&#039;s narrative, &quot;weren&#039;t really proper writers.&quot; It&#039;s no wonder Lakin got out as soon as possible in frustration. Camiile Marchetta, a writer-producer from Season 5, complained that the Pollocks&#039; disrespect for logic was a problem, their doing nonsensical things just to &quot;surprise&quot; viewers.The last few seasons of DALLAS didn&#039;t work either, as we all know. Just becoming too silly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarky Oracle!, post: 440779, member: 57984"] You've really got to specify the periods of the two shows to which you're referring. One of the complaints some viewers had about DALLAS' early era was that it was [I]too slow[/I] (the season which opened with 'WSJR?' was sometimes like watching paint dry -- made worse by a repetitive stock music score they were forced to use during a composers' strike). And the DYNASTY producers bragged -- correctly, at the time -- that their show moved more quickly and "respected the audiences' intelligent," but that point was made just after Season 2. But that all changed after the 1981-1982 season: DALLAS then sped up (in a good way) and DYNASTY started to ramble because they were no longer really telling their stories. DYNASTY's "intimacy" moments became shlock-talk, pretentious filler-exchanges with no real point to them. And DALLAS didn't do that, being more legitimately character-based most of the time. Yes, the DYNASTY's dialogue from Seasons 1, 2 & 9 [I][B]did [/B][/I]do the things you describe. But during Seasons 3 thru 7, the conversations would always quickly swerve off from the original topic into that "I'm-your-mother/I'm-your-father/why-won't-you-share-your-pain-with-me??"malarkey because the writers were disinterested in with their own plotlines and no longer knew how to write the series. Rita Lakin, a good writer and the story editor from Season 7 where she toiled unhappily, pointed out self-evidently that DYNASTY's Pollock duo, who ran the show's narrative, "weren't really proper writers." It's no wonder Lakin got out as soon as possible in frustration. Camiile Marchetta, a writer-producer from Season 5, complained that the Pollocks' disrespect for logic was a problem, their doing nonsensical things just to "surprise" viewers. The last few seasons of DALLAS didn't work either, as we all know. Just becoming too silly. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =