Should they have killed off John Ross instead of Christopher?

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Winner
LV
4
 
Messages
3,536
Reaction score
5,367
Awards
12
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 Star
LV
1
 
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
1,575
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
4
 
Messages
786
Reaction score
1,455
Awards
5
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
3,928
Reaction score
5,002
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 Winner
LV
4
 
Messages
3,536
Reaction score
5,367
Awards
12
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
283
Reaction score
903
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:

xab

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
0
 
Messages
172
Reaction score
155
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... ?
 

Rove

Telly Talk Winner
LV
0
 
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
5,002
Awards
5
Location
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
They'd have to bring in Lucas as John Ross 2.0 and then you'd ask "what's the point?"
And since there was no mention of Lucas in the TNT Dallas revival despite the occasional visit from Ray I have to agree with you. Ray and Lucy were wasted with their guest appearances because there was no catch-up time with the Ewing's. The obvious time would have been at Southfork after JR's Memorial where only family members are in attendance. I didn't like the odd appearance by Gary and Valene however it would have been interesting to see Bobby and Betsy.
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Winner
LV
4
 
Messages
3,536
Reaction score
5,367
Awards
12
Location
Australia
Member Since
14 September 2001
They'd have to bring in Lucas as John Ross 2.0 and then you'd ask "what's the point?"
Well, the point would be what it always was - a futile attempt at generating buzz. But my point was that it should have been Christopher vs Lucas in the first place.
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Winner
LV
4
 
Messages
3,536
Reaction score
5,367
Awards
12
Location
Australia
Member Since
14 September 2001
What catastrophic event do you foresee @Treeviewer to bring Lucas back to Dallas?
I don't know what would influence the timing - maybe John Ross's death would itself be the catalyst - but Lucas's long-simmering resentment - perhaps encouraged by the Morgan Fairchild version of Jenna - would always be the underlying motive.
Could it be argued some would consider writing off John Ross plot driven or is this what was needed from the outset to shock the audience.
Again, I'm not personally advocating killing off John Ross, but I guess both would apply. Would it have been more successful in ratings terms than what they did? Probably not.
 

stevew

Telly Talk Star
LV
1
 
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
1,575
Awards
7
Location
Michigan
Member Since
Jan 2012
And since there was no mention of Lucas in the TNT Dallas revival despite the occasional visit from Ray I have to agree with you. Ray and Lucy were wasted with their guest appearances because there was no catch-up time with the Ewing's. The obvious time would have been at Southfork after JR's Memorial where only family members are in attendance. I didn't like the odd appearance by Gary and Valene however it would have been interesting to see Bobby and Betsy.
Or at least have Lucy mention “my brother and sister” if they didn’t want to call them by name being the separation of the two shows or if they’d have to pay to mention them.

I like seeing JR, Sue Ellen and Bobby. I could have done without Cliff as they made him waky. But Lucy to me was a big missed opportunity. Maybe have her show up at the wedding with Lucas in tow. Jenna having died, Ray he came a recluse (only to return later and maybe with Donna), Lucy raises Lucas. Just showing up with him would have brought up tension. Maybe she could have got a share, even a 1/3, of EO with Bobby and Sue Ellen. Who knows what she learned about business in the missing years or how she made money or how many husbands she had. She could have been interesting and the three 2nd generation characters could have taken a supporting role to Lucy, John Ross, Christopher and Lucas - each representing a branch of the 3rd generation. Lucas replacing Christopher, ran out of town, in time and Margret showing up. Lucy always playing the middle man between the cousins. Ah what could have been.
 

stevew

Telly Talk Star
LV
1
 
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
1,575
Awards
7
Location
Michigan
Member Since
Jan 2012
Well, the point would be what it always was - a futile attempt at generating buzz. But my point was that it should have been Christopher vs Lucas in the first place.
I agree. Cain and Able was right there waiting to be played out. John Ross could have been in the middle like Jock, trying to moderate this mess. Christopher doing anything to prove himself. Lucas a playboy and Ewing by blood. Christopher married to the perfect wife, an Anderson probably. Lucas coming home with a Wendell. Christopher with a sharp tongue (which I think the actor could have pulled off) and Lucas with a hot temper and quick right hook. John Ross pulling them apart. “You’ve got to understand, Christoper hadn’t had it easy. His mom walk out in him.” “Look it, Lucas has as much right to be here as any of us, so cut it out!”

main cast from the original:
Lucy - matriarchish role
John Ross - patriarchish role
Christopher - JRish role
Lucas - Bobbyish role

still plenty of new characters for new writers to invent.
 
Last edited:

stevew

Telly Talk Star
LV
1
 
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
1,575
Awards
7
Location
Michigan
Member Since
Jan 2012
What catastrophic event do you foresee @Treeviewer to bring Lucas back to Dallas? Could it be argued some would consider writing off John Ross plot driven or is this what was needed from the outset to shock the audience.
That’s not shocking. That’s instead of who shot JR, who killed JR. JR gone, John Ross gone, one figures Sue Ellen leaves, what’s left? A snorefest. Show over. Oh yeah it was over anyway.
 
Last edited:

Via The Void

Telly Talk Dream Maker
LV
3
 
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
2,999
Awards
9
Whoever was going too die this "which Ewing dies" campaign was cheap hooker manners...

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

We can blame Daffy Duck he gave her the idea of A Ramos Will Die, which she then altered for her own ends!

She really should not have had Daffy as an Executive Story Consultant on the show, he was full of good idea's but unfortunately she didn't use them very well!

daffy1.jpg
 

stevew

Telly Talk Star
LV
1
 
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
1,575
Awards
7
Location
Michigan
Member Since
Jan 2012
We can blame Daffy Duck he gave her the idea of A Ramos Will Die, which she then altered for her own ends!

She really should not have had Daffy as an Executive Story Consultant on the show, he was full of good idea's but unfortunately she didn't use them very well!

View attachment 33516
Carmen should have been killed off. After going along with Elena’s blackmail she finds out Drew died because of the people Elena was dealing with and blames her. In her rush to get away, someone trying to kill John Ross for his involvement in bringing down the drug lords, as it turns out someone on Nick’s payroll, shoots and kills Carmen. Does John Ross or Carmen die? Of course it’ll be Carmen. And Elena will blame the Ewing’s. Doubling down on her hatred of then. Then Drew’s twin brother shows up with their Aunt Teresa and Uncle Raul, who don’t share Elena’s thinking and show the tie in to the original show.
 
Top