Is this for Real

[Bobby Southworth]

And every time you watch Teresa doing her job or follow instructions in a Classic Dallas rewatch it's because you know JR had conned her husband out of rich oil property. She was supposed to have servants, not be one.
Thanks to this retcon, Classic Dallas kinda dodges that bullet and you won't feel uncomfortable when you watch Teresa setting Miss Ellie's dinner table or decorating Miss Ellie's patio with the obligatory yellow stuff.
I think, if New Dallas had retroactively altered what happened on-screen in Classic Dallas, some of the fans would have hated it even more.
If a retcon has its cake and eat it then it works for me.

I'll be honest, it has been so long, and I wasn't all that invested in the Ramos family plot even then, so; I somewhat forgot about Carmen's husband being cheated by the Ewings.. Now that it's been brought back to my attention, I can see your point. I think maybe I checked out a little whenever it wasn't JR, John Ross, the Rylands, Sue Ellen, and to a lesser extent, yeah, even Bobby, but I wasn't real fond of this version of Bobby, and especially Ann.

 

[Rove]

It kinda would re-enforce what I already believed about the Ewings - none of them were decent people.

And that was the beauty of Dallas - how dysfunctional the family was...until outsiders attempted to attack.

 

[Seaviewer]

They should have explained how Ray got the ranch back in the movie.

The continuity errors and lackluster writing were major factors in the decline of the Dallas franchise as a whole as I see it.

All Cidre had to do was make her Terressa's daughter. Problem solved,

That was the frustrating thing about it. All the changes could have been explained in-story. Ignorance or just laziness?

 

[Rove]

Ignorance or just laziness

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.

 

[Willie Oleson]

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.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Carmen or Teresa, it doesn't make much difference imo.

Jesus Christ.

 

[CeeCee72]

Jesus Christ.

Not sure I would be able to buy the Ramos family being related to Jesus Christ.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Not sure I would be able to buy the Ramos family being related to Jesus Christ.

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??

 

[Taylor Bennett Jr.]

Not sure I would be able to buy the Ramos family being related to Jesus Christ.

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)

 

[Willie Oleson]

but apparently thought the cooks were interchangable.

Internalized anti-Latinism??

Your concern is simply overwhelming, my dear.

 

[CeeCee72]

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?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

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?

Servants also have a caste system.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Well, I never actually though Teresa and Raoul could possibly be the ONLY servants in the South Fork home.

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.

 

[Rove]

rather than going through the wish list of The Fanbase.

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.

 

[Rove]

Maybe they were the supervisors and Carmen never came out of the kitchen?

Well Southfork has been compared to the Tardis. Could explain a lot.

 

[Toni]

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.

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"?

 

[Toni]

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?

Maybe actually she was lazy and a bonbon fan!

​

 

[Willie Oleson]

I would have preferred to see legacy characters of Lucas, Margaret and potentially Cally's child as their story was established

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 (!!)

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

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?

 

[Willie Oleson]

^
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.