Most dishonest, manipulative show

[Jimmy Todd]

Well, good point. @WillieOleson. Scheming Nellie was the precursor to Alexis, Abby, and Angela. She even got pushed down a hill in a wheelchair into a pond by Laura. It's no lily pond, but still.

 

[James from London]

So...sentimental = dishonest?

Then Dynasty season 1 was dishonest too because Lindsay Blaisdel cried a lot.

I don't think to be emotional (which Lindsay certainly was) and sentimental are the same thing. I think of sentimentality as being indulgent, wallowing in an emotion, or in the past. I guess nostalgia is a form of sentimentality. There's nothing necessarily wrong with sentiment.

I don't think of Lindsay as sentimental or indulgent. She reacted truthfully, rawly, to the crazy, soapy circumstances she was presented with. You can't ask for more than that.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Well of course I didn't really agree with my "statement" about Dynasty season 1 being dishonest.

She reacted truthfully, rawly, to the crazy, soapy circumstances she was presented with

Agreed. But maybe it was a little bit indulgent? I mean, it made me and my mother laugh. I liked Lindsay a lot but I always loved to see her cry. Is that good or bad, I don't know, all I know is that I was being entertained.
And I also find it very funny when Pa Ingalls starts to cry just because one of his kids says something nice and Christian.

 

[Emelee]

Any soap opera where they make you think a character has changed and learned something, and then goes on to do something worse. Or is majorly hypocritical, judging others who do similar things - and playing the victim.

Worst of all is a character who turns on the tears, victimizing themself while being a huge hypocrit when judging someone elses actions. That combination is sickening!!! That's why I can't stand Brooke Logan on B&B.

 

[Daniel Avery]

For all the good things coming out of the Bell soaps (B&B as well as Y&R), one of their main drawbacks was how the characters never learned from their mistakes or "grew" as a consequence of their actions. Brooke is of course the prime example. She'll be on Medicare and checking into the retirement home, but will be falling into bed with the wrong men before she can get unpacked. But there are other examples. Victor (Y&R) keeps making his wife and kids hate him by being overly controlling, but he doesn't stop trying--and they keep forgiving him and going back for more shoddy treatment. I think Nikki's married him about ten times. Some say this lather-rinse-repeat cycle is comforting to fans, that it provides "consistency". I say it's repetitive and boring. But anyone who has kids know that they can watch the same cartoon or listening to the same song ad nauseam and never get tired of it.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Any soap opera where they make you think a character has changed and learned something, and then goes on to do something worse. Or is majorly hypocritical, judging others who do similar things - and playing the victim.

Worst of all is a character who turns on the tears, victimizing themself while being a huge hypocrit when judging someone elses actions. That combination is sickening!!! That's why I can't stand Brooke Logan on B&B.

But is that manipulation on the part of the show itself or just coming from the character?

 

[Emelee]

But is that manipulation on the part of the show itself or just coming from the character?

I'd say from tje show because they keep trying to make viewers sympathetic to this character as if she was the heroine of the show. A slightly flawed heroine. But in my book, she's the most manipulative of them all. All that poor me crying routine, it's played "for real", by actress and writers. But after a million "mistakes" it becomes manipulative.

 

[Daniel Avery]

While we tune in to soap operas with the expectation (sometimes the hope) of emotional response (the so-called "emotional investment" producers always speak of), I think the "agreement" between the show and the viewer is violated when the show starts to take its viewers for granted by doing 'retreads' (Brooke's many men, for example).

The so-called "reality shows" like the Khardashians and their ilk are purposely manipulative simply by characterizing their staged situations and scripted dialogue as "spontaneous". At least soaps don't try to convince us that they're documenting the exploits of real people. I can't confidently nominate The Bachelor/Bachelorette for this title since I've never watched an episode of it. I've read a lot about it, though, and it sounds tacky, exploitative, and yes, manipulative.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The so-called "reality shows" like the Khardashians and their ilk are purposely manipulative simply by characterizing their staged situations and scripted dialogue as "spontaneous".

I don't really understand the concept of dishonesty and manipulation in the context of entertainment, or even art.
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.
Come to think of it, manipulation and dishonesty are mutually exclusive. The reason to manipulate can be good or bad (e.g. manipulating a reluctant patient into having that much needed operation) but it's never dishonest because the manipulator honestly wants to achieve something (good or bad).

 

[Toni]

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...

About "Little House", I remember to watch it until the season after Mary got blind. I don´t know if it was then when I discovered "Dallas" and only wanted hardcore dramas instead of the preachy shows like LH. I loved Almanzo too, who was a hottie, but most plots were almost surrealistic. And how I grew to hate that Laura beech! I couldn´t find anything good in her... (I don´t like the actress as an adult either!) But within its melodrama preachiness, LH wasn´t able to deceive anyone. It was obvious since the very title: "Little House on the Prairie". What else was it going to be about, a chainsaw massacre?

Speaking of horror genre, I think that Lindsay Blaisdel was an homage to those films and I have the video to prove it (you can see it below, from 10:35 on)...

Other shows I consider "manipulative":

- "Hotel": The place where everybody working there is adorable and perfect, and only guest stars are the evil ones. Besides, there is Anne Baxter giving us all the time her "Eve Harrington" smile and Connie Sellecca flirting with all the male cast. Not get into Shari Belafonte-Harper from the Karen Cellini Acting Method...

- "The Golden Girls" (Last 2 seasons): Actually I´m not complaining about it but it was obvious they did have an agenda that sometimes affected the episodes´real plot. But hey, none of them was ever recast so it was a winning show!

- I also think that "Knots Landing", despite its overall greatness, was manipulative once in awhile, and Diana and Chip´s storyline comes to my mind. Was it an organic plot or a way to introduce an Emmy-worthy storyline for Michele Lee? Wasn´t their frequent psychos a way of manipulating the audience by refusing to let the main characters grow and instead just make them react to those psychos? Danny, Pierce and Jack Lemmon´s son come to my mind...

- The Dallas episode "Return to Camelot" deserves the "Manny" Award to the worst kind of manipulation for the reasons we all know and have already been exposed above. It was the laziest way to delete the previous season and a big FU to the viewers. The show had always flirted with the lame storylines but they hardly featured, for instance, an episode cliffhanger hinting something awful happening that didn´t happen at all (Dynasty-style). There was a tongue-in-cheek naughtiness in the writers´ style that usually didn´t betray the audience´s confidence. Up until the shower scene, of course.

It truly exists!!!!!​

 

[Willie Oleson]

- I also think that "Knots Landing", despite its overall greatness, was manipulative once in awhile, and Diana and Chip´s storyline comes to my mind. Was it an organic plot or a way to introduce an Emmy-worthy storyline for Michele Lee?

Or maybe the story is a story just because it's a story.

The show wanted to show him as a goody-goody which he never was...

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?

 

[Toni]

Or maybe the story is a story just because it's a story.

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?

Well, maybe because for the showrunners he wasn´t a homophobe and agreed with his opinion? I´d call that manipulation because making him the "moral" center of the show was an absurdity (not to mention the flower-arranger...)...and because all that happened in the 80s, even before the AIDS tragedy. It was not conservative: it was regressive, and after a decade (70s) that was precisely all the opposite. "Dallas" did in one episode ("Royal Wedding") so much more for the gay cause than "Dynasty" in all its run. Of course Alexis took over the show because her actions plus Joan Collins´ fabulousness made it 100 times more watchable...

 

[Willie Oleson]

maybe because for the showrunners he wasn´t a homophobe and agreed with his opinion?

That's certainly not how it looked in the episodes.

I´d call that manipulation because making him the "moral" center of the show

He wasn't. Krystle was.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

That's certainly not how it looked in the episodes.

He wasn't. Krystle was.

If only they made Krystle a bit more a proactive moral center. I would have loved a scene where she showed some passion, in this case anger, and point out to Blake taking a child from a loving parent is not moral and she knows first hand what it feels like to lose a child.

I always thought the show was more "dishonest" in its presentation of Jeff as one of the good guys when he often exhibited some pretty awful behavior.

 

[Willie Oleson]

and point out to Blake taking a child from a loving parent is not moral and she knows first hand what it feels like to lose a child.

But Blake thought it was immoral to have Danny raised in a homosexual environment, so from his point of view it's not the same argument.

 

[Toni]

But Blake thought it was immoral to have Danny raised in a homosexual environment, so from his point of view it's not the same argument.

...Thus they made the "moral center" a character who also was stupid as hell. Not even in the 80s, and sorry to repeat myself, his behavior was understandable for a man of world like him. Boo you Blake Bigottington!!

And re. his wife, she couldn´t even be passive-agressive with Alexis. All she did was having a catfight when she was fed up of that "Brit ex"... It would have been fun to hear her thoughts once in awhile and know what she exactly thought about Alexis. After all both were involved in adulterous relationships, though Krystle was a divorcee when she was with married Matthew. The little lamb wasn´t that innocent... Maybe Lindsay was actually hers? That would explain so many things...

 

[Toni]

That's certainly not how it looked in the episodes.

He wasn't. Krystle was.

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...

 

[Michael Torrance]

Worst of all is a character who turns on the tears, victimizing themself while being a huge hypocrit when judging someone elses actions. That combination is sickening!!! That's why I can't stand Brooke Logan on B&B.

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.

 

[Willie Oleson]

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...

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!

 

[Jimmy Todd]

But Blake thought it was immoral to have Danny raised in a homosexual environment, so from his point of view it's not the same argument.

Excellent point, Willie. 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. In other words a "grey" character and Krystle's conversation with him would expose to the audience, and possibly him, which one he is. This would place Dynasty in Knots Landing seasons 4 to 6 league.
A frame of reference would be to look at some of the conversations Edith had with Archie on All in the Family. One in particular is called "Cousin Liz." Of course, Carroll O'Connor and Jean Stapleton were top notch actors.