Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Awards
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
A little forum update...We're planning an upgrade.
Find out more about what's planned and how you can help support the forum
Click here for the details
Forums
US Soaps
Falcon Crest
Was Falcon Crest better written than Dynasty?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ClassyCo" data-source="post: 445946" data-attributes="member: 7"><p>DYNASTY was the first of the "Big Four" primetime soaps from the '80s that I watched, and for many years, I was one of its biggest defenders. The thing is, DYNASTY started off strong, even if Season 1 was a little slow for me. Season 2 is where everything to fell into place, and the show found the outrageous-reality balance that really worked. Joan Collins is great as a Alexis, even if I can admit she came to dominate the show a little too much as time lingered on. The middle years of the show (at a time when it was one of the hottest shows on TV, followed by a sensational decline) are where the major problems are. The clips you can find online are definitely misleading of a show that had serious issues with characterization and telling a cohesive story. Season 8 was a step back in the right direction -- for the most part, anyway -- and Season 9 ended up being perhaps the best season of the show overall. A life was brought back, and the show needed at least one more season to wrap everything up nicely. </p><p></p><p>FALCON CREST started self-contained -- as did DALLAS and KNOTS LANDING -- so those first ten episodes of Season 1 can be a bit of a chore to get through. Once the show became a full-fledged soap, however, I feel like it was a strong show with good, solid characters, conflicts, and resolutions. Seasons 2 and 3 are FALCON CREST at its peak, at a time when, for me at least, it rarely made a misstep. At the start of Season 4, you could tell there was something off, most likely off-camera, and Season 5 only added to that cluttered, overly-stuffed feeling. Season 6 was reenergized, and I liked it a lot, while Season 7 was too busy, too many comings and goings, and Season 8 got boring very fast. </p><p></p><p>To answer the question, though, I'd argue that FALCON CREST was better written than DYNASTY. While the latter is more iconic, the former was a better-written, better-executed show when it was in its prime. Of course, this conclusion is drawn from my admiration of Jane Wyman, David Selby, and Susan Sullivan, the location shooting in the Napa Valley, and the beauty of the homes (in the earlier seasons at least), but I think FALCON CREST, overall, is a better show. That's not to say that FALCON CREST didn't make some bad decisions and that the show isn't without its low points. I just think DYNASTY is more frustrating because the potential is there, but it's just squandered left and right. </p><p></p><p>But, as they say, that's just me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClassyCo, post: 445946, member: 7"] DYNASTY was the first of the "Big Four" primetime soaps from the '80s that I watched, and for many years, I was one of its biggest defenders. The thing is, DYNASTY started off strong, even if Season 1 was a little slow for me. Season 2 is where everything to fell into place, and the show found the outrageous-reality balance that really worked. Joan Collins is great as a Alexis, even if I can admit she came to dominate the show a little too much as time lingered on. The middle years of the show (at a time when it was one of the hottest shows on TV, followed by a sensational decline) are where the major problems are. The clips you can find online are definitely misleading of a show that had serious issues with characterization and telling a cohesive story. Season 8 was a step back in the right direction -- for the most part, anyway -- and Season 9 ended up being perhaps the best season of the show overall. A life was brought back, and the show needed at least one more season to wrap everything up nicely. FALCON CREST started self-contained -- as did DALLAS and KNOTS LANDING -- so those first ten episodes of Season 1 can be a bit of a chore to get through. Once the show became a full-fledged soap, however, I feel like it was a strong show with good, solid characters, conflicts, and resolutions. Seasons 2 and 3 are FALCON CREST at its peak, at a time when, for me at least, it rarely made a misstep. At the start of Season 4, you could tell there was something off, most likely off-camera, and Season 5 only added to that cluttered, overly-stuffed feeling. Season 6 was reenergized, and I liked it a lot, while Season 7 was too busy, too many comings and goings, and Season 8 got boring very fast. To answer the question, though, I'd argue that FALCON CREST was better written than DYNASTY. While the latter is more iconic, the former was a better-written, better-executed show when it was in its prime. Of course, this conclusion is drawn from my admiration of Jane Wyman, David Selby, and Susan Sullivan, the location shooting in the Napa Valley, and the beauty of the homes (in the earlier seasons at least), but I think FALCON CREST, overall, is a better show. That's not to say that FALCON CREST didn't make some bad decisions and that the show isn't without its low points. I just think DYNASTY is more frustrating because the potential is there, but it's just squandered left and right. But, as they say, that's just me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who played JR Ewing?
Post reply
Forums
US Soaps
Falcon Crest
Was Falcon Crest better written than Dynasty?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
