Was Falcon Crest better written than Dynasty?

[Gioberti84]

Sorry I tried to edit my earlier post but most of the text disappeared so I've reposted the thread. Admin please delete the duplicate earlier post. Thank you!

I think it was @Spooky Owl who commented some time ago about the parallels between
Falcon Crest and Dynasty. My question though is which one was better written, across nine seasons?

Falcon Crest was gothic and atmospheric in the highest rated seasons, up to the spring of 1985. Dynasty was at the risk of cancellation until Aaron Spelling played an ace card, when Joan Collins was hired. I enjoyed Dynasty but the story telling did not get me hooked, as much as Falcon Crest.

Those Dynasty folks were more like in a fairytale land, compared to the wine making gang. The lack of location shooting and flipping between overacting and flat acting didn't help Dynasty either. Falcon Crest had diabolical moments too but at least it was more rooted in business. The high level of campness and portrayal of fashion/glamour, the never ending war between Alexis and Krystle with Blake so posessive of his Dynasty were the show's main selling points.

So which show do you think was better written?

 

[Monzo]

All things considered, I find Dynasty to be better written than Falcon Crest. Looking at the entire run Falcon Crest lost its momentum quite quickly, whereas some storylines from seasons 5 and 6 of Dynasty remained memorable even to those who aren't die-hard soap fans.

One thing that bothered me about the writing in Falcon Crest was that death was consistently used as an easy way out of a plotline. Even though Dallas and Knots Landing both ran for over a hundred episodes more than Falcon Crest, far fewer characters died in those shows. Dynasty may have killed off too few characters, see the Moldavian massacre, but at least it made an effort to keep characters in the show rather than simply killing them off.

What speaks in favor of Dynasty is that the show became successful on its own, without needing a lead-in—unlike Falcon Crest. I’ve always wondered how Falcon Crest might have fared if it had aired on NBC (instead of Flamingo Road) or on ABC (instead of Paper Dolls). Would it still have reached nine seasons, or would it have turned out to be a short-lived soap instead?

 

[Gioberti84]

That was the one disadvantage of the storytelling in Falcon Crest, all those deaths (just over 100). I suppose the killing was somehow a distinguishable factor of the show, compared to the others. Of course it had a obvious disadvantage in that whatever future plots or storylines where a character who was dead could've contributed so much to that particular time.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

You're both right.

All four of the '80s nighttime soaps were better than each other depending on the season and who was writing/producing them at any given period.

DYNASTY was well-written during Seasons 1, 2 and 9. But in between, the dialogue became more florid and "soapy," far too many scenes wound up veering off into dialogue lazily reaffirming the characters' relationships ("You're my father/mother/sister/brother/lover and I love/hate you!") when the writers were too bored with their own plotlines to have those characters converse naturally or logically. (Made more obvious by the introduction of the static acting directive beginning with Season 3, which caused decently-written scenes to feel unnecessarily stupid). Most years, the DYNASTY writers didn't know what story they wanted to tell, how to tell it, or how to effectively wrap up cliffhangers, large or small (the Moldavia Massacre's pathetic aftermath a metaphor for the series' problems as a whole). So DYNASTY just became about "events" -- parties, catfights, time-killing bedroom scenes -- and as any competent television writer will tell you: events are not story; events are only an enhancement to the story.

FALCON CREST was often more frenetic yet more competent in its storytelling. Especially during its first three seasons when Robert McCullough ran the narrative -- he knew what he was doing. And even when there were holes in the writing, sheer chutzpah pulled it off. Season 4 was acceptable until CBS demanded the nazi treasure storyline, the year's main plotline, be dropped 10 episodes before the end of that season... For me, FC just never recovered... Season 5 was drab and cluttered. Seasons 6, under Jeff Freilich, reenergized the series yet offered up too much silliness. Season 7 was too frenetic, while remaining too silly. Season 8 tried to go straight again but the show no longer knew how (bring back McCullough, not Stern & Black!). And Season 9 was a different show entirely, which may or may not have appealed to the viewer -- depending on that viewer.

At the end of the day, I'd have to say FALCON CREST was the better-written -- even though both shows had tons of crap mixed in. The difference being that, good or bad -- successful or unsuccessful, FC was actually trying to tell a story. Mostly, DYNASTY was not, and seemed to have little genuine interest in their characters (S.A.D. just making that harder to obscure, rendering the characters somehow lobotomized and more artificial than all the sequins).

DYNASTY may have had the most potential of any of the four '80s primetime serials, but did the least with whatever it had, the show constantly suppressed and suffocated by "not really proper writers" (as the Pollocks were described). But FALCON CREST at least tried -- sometimes even trying perhaps a little too hard.

Otherwise, the parallels between the two shows, as we've discussed in another thread, are uncanny.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Dynasty was at the risk of cancellation until Aaron Spelling played an ace card, when Joan Collins was hired

Whatever the reason for the almost-cancellation was, it certainly wasn't bad writing.

The high level of campness and portrayal of fashion/glamour, the never ending war between Alexis and Krystle with Blake so posessive of his Dynasty were the show's main selling points.

There was camp in Dynasty but unlike Falcon Crest it was never written as comedy.

Dynasty was the soap for me that remained must-watch TV while the second half of Falcon Crest could be a bit trying sometimes (not that I ever considered stop watching).

 

[Daniel Avery]

Falcon Crest certainly was the funnier of the two---that is, intentionally funny. I was always anticipating Angela's dry, witty responses to the goings-on around her. She would have found Blake and Krystle to be dull company....until she got Chao-Li to over-serve them from the private cellar.

FC was arguably the funniest of the four, though.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

Falcon Crest certainly was the funnier of the two---that is, intentionally funny. I was always anticipating Angela's dry, witty responses to the goings-on around her. She would have found Blake and Krystle to be dull company....until she got Chao-Li to over-serve them from the private cellar.

FC was arguably the funniest of the four, though.

Well, FC engaged in two different kinds of funny: the genuine drollness of the early years versus the shlocky, wink-at-the-camera stuff from later on -- the problem complicated by the fact that the later writers thought it was the same thing.

In contrast, DYNASTY took itself very seriously -- as such a show should. But most of it was such a stifled, creative mess, it didn't really matter. (Once again, Seasons 1, 2 and 9 were well-written).