Should they have killed off John Ross instead of Christopher?

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
2
 
Messages
3,429
Reaction score
5,098
Awards
10
Location
Australia
Member Since
14 September 2001
Should they have killed off John Ross instead of Christopher?
Not that I accept that Christopher is really dead, mind you, but it occurs to me that, in story terms, it is John Ross that is the superfluous character.
A lot of us have expressed the opinion that the real conflict should have been between Christopher and Lucas, with Bobby as the Jock figure.
The late-in-the-game sidelining of Christopher as part of an attempt to rekindle the Bobby vs JR rivalry, but with the older Bobby against his young nephew John Ross, just seemed wrong.
 

stevew

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
1,434
Awards
7
Location
Michigan
Member Since
Jan 2012
Should they have killed off John Ross instead of Christopher?
Not that I accept that Christopher is really dead, mind you, but it occurs to me that, in story terms, it is John Ross that is the superfluous character.
A lot of us have expressed the opinion that the real conflict should have been between Christopher and Lucas, with Bobby as the Jock figure.
The late-in-the-game sidelining of Christopher as part of an attempt to rekindle the Bobby vs JR rivalry, but with the older Bobby against his young nephew John Ross, just seemed wrong.
I agree it seemed wrong, and I’d guess so did David Jacob’s, which is why he proposed John Ross as the Bobby character and Christopher as the JR character. Bobby torn between his son who is wrong and his nephew who is right would have been real drama. Plus the actor playing Chris would have done a much better job, IMO, at being a son of a bitch, literally, than a good guy. Now bring in Lucas in the role of Ray (ironically) and we’ve got a retcon. IMO, Ann was not needed. Sue Ellen could have moved into South Fork at Bobby’s request and filled that void, even though they wouldn’t be married. And John Ross could have had a child at 17/18 putting them late in high school to fill the Lucy role and there you have it, a recon of continuation.

As directly to your question since this isn’t what they were doing, my answer is no. John Ross, IMO, was the only interesting part of the series. Bad Bobby was frustrating to me. Drunk Sue Ellen was annoying. Ann was weak as water. Christopher needed a good ass kicking. I don’t know who Elena was. Pamela was Sue Ellen all over again. Cliff was nuts yet they never explained him as such. Ryland needed to stay in prison if I’m to buy JR’s mater piece so that just pissed me off. I liked Judith, especially with John Ross (except for “momma likes” but I could live with that). Other than being weak by as water himself, they had the most potential with John Ross’s character and the actor, IMO.

I would have loved to have seen Ann live up to her potential and tell back at Bobby sticking up for John Ross. Now that would have been tension. Made her character stronger and driven Bobby more into the curmudgeon old man character. “Now your mad and John Ross for sleeping with Emma! You set up a busy marriage for him, you son shoves in his face Elena, then just tosses her aside, and you let Sue Ellen out to nearly kill her self and John Ross is the bad guy! You’re either an idiot or the biggest son of a bitch I’ve ever been, Bobby Ewing!”

But as for Christopers death, I think at that point they just needed to take him full on bad, not kill him off. Return to Jacob’s original suggestion.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
749
Reaction score
1,321
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
I absolutely hated the whole promo of "Which Ewing will die?", it was a tasteless campaign for something that was stuck onto the end of the final episode at the very last minute - with no thought at all about how it would affect the show going forwards IF a further series was commissioned.

I don't think killing off John Ross would have made any difference to be honest, either way we were never shown what followed and how everyone reacted. However I think John Ross was a developing character as opposed to Christopher who was just badly written and very poorly acted.

I feel a better cliffhanger would have been to have someone die, in a group situation but the person's identity remaining unknown, then everyone could have speculated.
 

Rove

Telly Talk Winner
LV
0
 
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
4,801
Awards
5
Location
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Trying to murder legacy characters is a no no
I agree. For a continuation like Dallas to succeed I need those legacy characters around for as long as the actors are willing to continue. As in the case when Patrick decided to leave during the Lorimar days I loved how the writers were brave enough to kill off an important character. In the case of TNT Dallas I wished for more Ewing's...not less. We needed the drama and I was interested to see how the writers were going to explore John Ross without JR there to guide or goad him. Throw in Lucas and poor ole' Bobby wouldn't know which way to turn trying to handle a loving son, Christopher. A wayward nephew, John Ross and the never before seen long lost son, Lucas.

Seriously the story was right there. John Ross desperately trying to live up to the reputation of JR despite screaming at Sue Ellen, "I am not my father!" Christopher's background was enough to send any kid off the tracks and Lucas returns to confront his biological father why he just let him go.
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
2
 
Messages
3,429
Reaction score
5,098
Awards
10
Location
Australia
Member Since
14 September 2001
Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating the killing off of John Ross, merely suggesting that if such a stunt was contemplated then Christopher was the more essential in relationship terms.
 

the-lost-son

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
0
 
Messages
276
Reaction score
877
Awards
5
Location
Germany
Member Since
2003
Seriously the story was right there. John Ross desperately trying to live up to the reputation of JR despite screaming at Sue Ellen, "I am not my father!" Christopher's background was enough to send any kid off the tracks and Lucas returns to confront his biological father why he just let him go.
Exactly- I second that.
There was no need to kill off a major character, especiallly after we lost JR the year earlier. It was a cheap and desperate move to attract more viewers.
The campaign "Which will Ewing will die?" was THE jump-the-shark moment for me. I was a loyal viewer of TNT Dallas, enjoyed some plots & scenes but I was mostly hoping for the show to find a footing. After season 3's finale I was ready to let it go.

I liked JR, Bobby, Sue Ellen, JohnRoss and Christopher in Dallas TNT, I was glad to have Cliff back despite the many changes.
The story was there - the next generation fighting for the seat at the head of the table. Maybe with changing aliances - John Ross/JR/Sue Ellen vs. Christopher/Cliff/Bobby.

The problem for me there all these uninteresting, dull secondary characters - the complete family Ryland, the complete family Ramos...
If you'd have to kill one off, take one of them. But as there wasn't any build-up, it's better to stay away from a such cheap move.
 
Last edited:

Ollie james

Telly Talk Member
LV
0
 
Messages
66
Reaction score
132
Awards
1
Location
Ireland
Member Since
2018
No I think John Ross was far better acted and more interesting than christopher. He was my fave character of the newbies on tnt Dallas.
 

xab

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
0
 
Messages
172
Reaction score
151
Awards
3
Location
france
Whoever was going too die this "which Ewing dies" campaign was cheap hooker manners...

A duck pound or a brothel, Madame Cidre... ?
 
Top