Most dishonest, manipulative show

[Michael Torrance]

Manipulation always depends on the eye of the beholder. To me, "Dynasty" was manipulative since Day One because its hero was a homophobe who also was a rapist. Making his ex-wife the center of the show, later on, didn´t change that, all the opposite. The show wanted to show him as a goody-goody which he never was...

Well, his wife became the center of his world by season three.
As you say, it is in the eye of the beholder. For this viewer, season one Blake was portrayed very much as the Godfather of Colorado, and I don't consider the Godfather to be someone the audience is supposed to see as the moral center(Brando or Pacino). The season 1 episodes made it obvious that Steven was right and Blake was wrong. But the audience did need someone to voice their perspective, and the homophobic opinion was very much the nation's (nay, the world's) perspective in 1981.
Season 1 Dynasty did not have a simplistic morality like all shows on the air at the time. Characters had inexcusable behaviour and also more vulnerable moments. I think the way the show portrayed it through Blake and Steven was ground-breaking for 1981, and very, very gutsy. Al Corley's Steven was a revelation for gay people who watched the show. He certainly was for me, which probably made his season 2 sudden straightening/lobotomy such a slap in the face. You can certainly say that in the long run, Dynasty did do damage with the way they handled Steven, a co-effort by the writers AND Jack Coleman's own homophobia, but the season 1 episodes brought a gay man to be part of the core cast of a marquee show on a US television network.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Krystle was a plastic Stepford wife for most of the run of the show. I don´t consider that the "moral center" because she was immersed in her inner world of Oz with Alexis being the Wicked Witch of Denver...

Krystle was indeed the plastic Stepford wife for most of the run of the show, but I don't think her failure to be -- or remain -- the moral center was because she was pitted against the Wicked Witch. Glinda the Good Witch, for example, was convincing enough as the moral center of OZ.

Krystle was constrained by the static acting directive and producers' desire to keep her in as much of a box as Blake did, and as insulted as Alexis made her. And there was their refusal to follow up on her innate goodness (healing the sick and feeding the poor, naturally).

I was watching her crap 1979 movie AVALANCHE EXPRESS the other day, and yet Linda is a three-dimensional person, one whose pain you believe, because of her acting, despite a hapless script.

Krystle's moral center was stolen by tying her down and replacing with a soulless, frozen double ...... hey, what a great idea for a plotline!!

 

[Willie Oleson]

This is where the show would need a really good writer when Krystle has this conversation with him. It would present Blake as either an ignorant person, a man who has issues with sexuality, a control freak, or a conflicted person holding on to old-fashioned beliefs

But does it have to be literally spelt out when the viewer already knows these things?

 

[Toni]

Say about Dynasty what you like but at least they had the guts to deal with blatant homophobia, and it made the topic more interesting than just having a gay character doing gay things.

Even season 5 had some good scenes!

Did they really...? And did they make it interesting...? It´s a matter of opinion, isn´t it? And why someone who has seen the show can´t express an opinion different to yours? (I still adore you though...)

 

[Jimmy Todd]

But does it have to be literally spelt out when the viewer already knows these things?

Not necessarily. There could be room for what a viewer perceives. That's when a show is really interesting. I think KL and Dallas achieved that quite often. Dynasty may have in seasons 1 or 2.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Did they really...? And did they make it interesting...?

Well...

And why someone who has seen the show can´t express an opinion different to yours?

I disagreed with you because the Dynasty episodes contradict your opinion. But I didn't say that you should change your opinion.

 

[Emelee]

But usually those who can't stand that behaviour in Brooke find it wonderful and morally upright in Stephanie and Taylor, so these people are eager to be manipulated, just not by certain characters.

It's the tears and the "poor me" attitude that I cannot stand. Not the manipulation by one character of another character. The dishonest part IMO is playing the wing-clipped bird who cries and cries in front of the people they want to feel sorry for you. That´s not anything Stephanie ever did. She never turned on the waterworks to get people to feel sorry for her. All B&B characters are hypocrites, always have been. But it's the way some act hypocritical and victimizes themselves by crying all the time that really makes me irritated.

Stephanie way always portrayed as the antagonist while Brooke was always portrayed as the heroine. But come on!!!!!!!! Give me a shovel!!! They are equally as bad when it comes to their actions. Stephanie never pretended that she was sorry for what she did when she wasn't. She never cried to Eric and Ridge to make them feel sorry for her. They knew exactly where she stood and how she felt. Brooke on the other hand cried and cried and cried. But not to Stephanie or Taylor. When alone with Stephanie & Taylor, her real self came out. But to Eric and Ridge, it was all "I made a mistake and now Taylor and Stephanie are horrible to me. And I swear I have changed!!!" And it was played for real, like she really did feel bad. Like she really had changed. But of course she hadn't. She still hasn't changed. She's going off on Flo, Shauna and Thomas for their lies. She tells Shauna that she's "the tramp of Vegas" and how horrible she is because she didn't know Flo's paternity. Meanwhile, Brooke had to have paternity tests done on both Bridget and R.J. And her son-in-law fathered Hope. And she wanted Hope to lie about possibly killing Thomas. All the while she cries and thinks everyone is horrible except the "real" Logans. She still refuses to see Flo as a Logan, so blood is not enough to be a Logan apparently.

Brooke would be a much more tolerable character if she didn't cry every week. It's those tears that make me really hate her!!!!

 

[Michael Torrance]

It's the tears and the "poor me" attitude that I cannot stand. Not the manipulation by one character of another character. The dishonest part IMO is playing the wing-clipped bird who cries and cries in front of the people they want to feel sorry for you. That´s not anything Stephanie ever did. She never turned on the waterworks to get people to feel sorry for her.

I guess the episodes where Stephanie pretended to have a heart attack so that people would feel sorry for her and Ridge would dump Brooke and marry Taylor never aired in Sweden.

 

[Toni]

Well...
View attachment 18898

I disagreed with you because the Dynasty episodes contradict your opinion. But I didn't say that you should change your opinion.

Of course the Ted Dinard case was interesting, in fact the first 2 seasons were interesting because every character still had a personality. But since the moment Steven slept with Sammy Jo, I began to lose interest for the show. And well, he said at some point "I am homosexual!" before Corley left, but the first thing he did when he came back reincarnated in tight-ass Coleman was marrying another woman, Claudia, and do a "normal" life with her. Those writers were experts at regression, not development... (I also think the same about certain parts of "Dallas" and "Knots Landing", so let´s have a happy verbal catfight...). Anyway, what I think the show did is not what you think it did, this is the problem...

 

[Emelee]

I guess the episodes where Stephanie pretended to have a heart attack so that people would feel sorry for her and Ridge would dump Brooke and marry Taylor never aired in Sweden.

That was just pure manipulation. She never cried. She just pretended to be in pain and viewers found out like 1 episode later that she was faking. So it was never any manipulation from the writers to make viewers feel sorry for Syephanie.

Brooke's tears are both directed to characters AND viewers. The writers want us to feel sorry for Brooke. They want viewers to root for her. Ergo, they have her cry all frickin the time.

 

[Michael Torrance]

Brooke's tears are both directed to characters AND viewers. The writers want us to feel sorry for Brooke. They want viewers to root for her. Ergo, they have her cry all frickin the time.

You are right about Stephanie. But Taylor does cry a lot--she just does it lousy. Maybe that is why viewers never fall for it.
But I doubt even people who like Brooke are manipulated by her tears. They know she cries at the drop of a hat. But the main charge against her (hypocrisy) coming from people who ignore Stephanie and Taylor's hypocrisy makes the charge lose credibility in my book.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Anyway, what I think the show did is not what you think it did, this is the problem...

I don't think it's a problem, Toni

 

[Toni]

I don't think it's a problem, Toni

Of course not, you are and will always be my Willie...!

 

[Toni]

Krystle was indeed the plastic Stepford wife for most of the run of the show, but I don't think her failure to be -- or remain -- the moral center was because she was pitted against the Wicked Witch. Glinda the Good Witch, for example, was convincing enough as the moral center of OZ.

But not in "Wicked", where she was a manipulative little beech played by Kristin Chenoweth...

 

[Emelee]

You are right about Stephanie. But Taylor does cry a lot--she just does it lousy. Maybe that is why viewers never fall for it.
But I doubt even people who like Brooke are manipulated by her tears. They know she cries at the drop of a hat. But the main charge against her (hypocrisy) coming from people who ignore Stephanie and Taylor's hypocrisy makes the charge lose credibility in my book.

Stephanie and Taylor have always been called out by fans when they are being hypocritical. Rightly so. There isn't any character who should cast stones except the babies. I think fans of Stephanie and Taylor are just sick of Brooke always being the one coming up on top. It's annoying.

 

[Alexis]

You can't ask for more than that.

You can ask that she does it quietly. In another room.

 

[bmasters9]

I'm not sure how an overwrought Christian melodrama like LHOTP is not supposed to look like overwrought Christian melodrama.

What do you mean by "overwrought Christian melodrama"?

 

[Kenny Coyote]

After all, the whole point of being manipulated is that you don't realize you're being manipulated. I could argue that the succesfully-manipulative tv shows are the best ones.

That's right. These are fictional characters, so what should it matter to us what happens to them? They manipulate our emotions into caring what happens to them and that manipulation is done by good story-telling.

What do you mean by "overwrought Christian melodrama"?

I've never seem Little House On The Prairie but I know of it. I also wonder what this comment was supposed to mean because LHOP was created by libertarians. They're atheists!

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Well, he was still a homophobe in season 4. It's more about the conflict and drama than showing who's wrong and who's right. Of course I disagreed with Blake, but he believed he was doing the right thing. So how is that manipulative?

I agree that it's the purpose of a show to provide conflict and drama - not to teach you what proper morality is. Why would you trust a TV show to teach you right from wrong? Morality varies from person to person and is based on a person's belief of what is right and what is wrong. We all have our own ideas of what exactly that is, which is one of the dangerous things about political correctness. Who gets to decide what is politically correct and what isn't? Who gets to decide that a joke that was funny last week isn't funny anymore?

I haven't seen Dynasty, but based on what was written here, the character seems to have firm convictions about what is right and what is wrong. I can deal with a person like that much better than someone who is wishy-washy and changes his beliefs to whatever benefits him in a particular situation. With a person who has firm convictions, at least you know who you're dealing with!

I expect a TV drama to try to manipulate my emotions. That's what it should be doing. There isn't anything dishonest about that. They're trying to create emotion to make a compelling story. What I find dishonest is a show that has an agenda behind it, where it tries to teach you what to think, a show that tries to get your political or ethical beliefs in line with their own ethics or politics. It's not a show's job to try to support a certain cause or undermine another cause. Their job is to entertain. They're in show business - not in the business of politics. Besides, if they do try to run a political agenda, they run the risk of alienating 50% of their potential audience and that's bad business.

What characters are good, or the "moral center"of a show is in the eye of the beholder. Usually they're all flawed characters anyway. I like it better when they don't try too hard to get you to like or dislike a certain character - to me that's contrived. Just let things take their natural course, let a character's actions speak for themselves and the audience will make up their own minds. They can't force me to like anyone anyway and it's annoying to have a certain character you don't like be shoved down your throat.

 

[bmasters9]

Why would you trust a TV show to teach you right from wrong?

That's a great question-- unfortunately, autistics like myself take things quite literally, and though we might want to just accept that a show is just a fictional story, our autistic brains won't let us; that phenomenon is called "Everybody is Jesus in Purgatory." Have you ever heard of that?