First time watch

Chase Gioberti

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
1
 
Awards
6
I just finished a long run of a Dallas/Knots Landing/Falcon Crest rewatch. Now I’m watching Dynasty for the first time. I’ve never seen an episode. I always wished Frank Krutcher had a bigger role on Dallas so I’m happy to see he has a semi-prominent role to begin with here on Dynasty.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19

They both lost their partners in the swamps of "South America". Probably in the same crash.

OIP.4smykmaVzaC9pflX01NXSQHaK5
 
Last edited:

Chase Gioberti

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
1
 
Awards
6
Quick question (not many spoilers please, still in season 1, episode 12) …

Does Dynasty do much backstory like Dallas and Falcon Crest? Do we find out how the Carringtons and Colby’s made all their money, whether inherited or self made? Or are we just told they’re rich and never told how or why?

thanks in advance
 

Ked

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Awards
4
Quick question (not many spoilers please, still in season 1, episode 12) …

Does Dynasty do much backstory like Dallas and Falcon Crest? Do we find out how the Carringtons and Colby’s made all their money, whether inherited or self made? Or are we just told they’re rich and never told how or why?

thanks in advance
I mean... kinda sorta?

The canon of DYNASTY isn't written in stone... but in water.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
Quick question (not many spoilers please, still in season 1, episode 12) …

Does Dynasty do much backstory like Dallas and Falcon Crest? Do we find out how the Carringtons and Colby’s made all their money, whether inherited or self made? Or are we just told they’re rich and never told how or why?

thanks in advance

Okay, no spoilers.

DYNASTY had, in my opinion, some of the best backstory potential of any show --- it is, after all, about a dynasty.

But the second-string producers (as Joan called them) had some creative pathologies -- while they were good at casting and unformed story ideas, they were very week at pacing and detail (and, hence, construction) and had these ruinous creative perversities (like the static acting directive, which you'll observe crop up in the first episode of Season 3).

Therefore, continuity isn't their strong suit.

I assume you know about Alexis. As the series winds on, the narrative, the dialogue, always crystallizes (as it were) when Blake and Alexis start bitching at each other about their bad marriage/divorce. Oddly, the same is true when the shadowy backstory is discussed of Kirby, the majordomo's daughter who pops up in Season 3, Joseph himself, and her deranged mama (unseen by the camera) which plays itself out in Seasons 3 & 4 --- despite the fact that the audience, generally, doesn't really like Kirby nor find her terribly interesting.

Suffice it to say, the DYNASTY writers sometimes came up with very promising backstory ideas, yet wouldn't follow through with them (choosing to instead focus on the dull, cliched stuff with far less potential and for far longer)... I mean, just steel yourself for that pattern as your viewing goes along.

That, and the pointless bedroom scenes and endless relationship re-defining dialogue (e.g., "I'm your father/You're my daughter/Why don't you share your pain with me?," etc.) is used as endless time-killers --- and one wouldn't think time-killers necessary in a multi-character/multi-generational saga like DYNASTY... Those problems begin in Season 3, but at least the writers still seem to care about their characters; not necessarily so for Season 4 (and beyond).

But don't let anybody scare you away from the series. You must endure the Tortellini of the Damned (or is that Amanda2? or FALCON CREST?) along with the rest of us.

The point being: adjust your expectations (after wonderful Seasons 1 & 2, and, later Season 9) and you'll probably get through it more or less in one piece.

velvetbook2.jpg
 
Last edited:

Chase Gioberti

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
1
 
Awards
6
I’m partway through season 2. Why on earth did they think it was a good idea to replace Pamela Sue Anderson down the road? She does the role well, so far that is. What Lucy should have been in Dallas.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
I’m partway through season 2. Why on earth did they think it was a good idea to replace Pamela Sue Anderson down the road? She does the role well, so far that is. What Lucy should have been in Dallas.

PSM knew the writing -- for her for the show as a whole -- was sliding by Seasons 3 & 4, and she quit. They called her once a year to come back, but she wisely refused. So they recast Fallon with a completely different type of actress. (They eventually would recast all four grown children disastrously -- everybody hated it, but the brass seemed to like doing it; Aaron Spelling later said that "nobody gives a damn" if you recast supporting actors, but that wasn't true at all).

PSM observed that the original writers were replaced (pretty quickly) with "traditional soap writers" (and not very good ones, who were pals with the creators) and she wasn't about to go back to the series.
 

Chase Gioberti

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
1
 
Awards
6
Season 2 Episode 3 - I know they’re not actually skeet shooting but would it have killed them to have Fallon and Alexis at least hold the gun correctly and stand correctly? Did nobody care about their craft in these days?
 

Matthew Blaisdel

Telly Talk Star
LV
0
 
Awards
4
The audience wanted to see only the rich and weren't much interested in those utterly tiny house middle class people. They wanted to see 5 rich people living in a 38 bedroom mansion. That's why it happened.
 
Last edited:
Top