Sort of like, how was it possible that Fallon and Steven Carrington had never heard of the tragic kidnapping of their older brother?
I'm willing to suspend disbelief -- to a point -- on things like that. Blake's explanation that he wanted to "protect" his surviving children from the terror of prospective kidnapping works okay for me as long as he points out that the Carrington name "was less famous then" so it was easier to keep the story quiet and away from the kids... Of course, that doesn't explain why Steven & Fallon didn't get wind of the kidnapping
later after the Carrington family name
had become more famous (after all, no sunlight can intrude into that foyer as its outshone by all that flatlighting and, hence, the truth is neutralized)... So I say: just address the incredulities in logic, let somebody verbalize them, and then someone else can shrug (in a "yeah, that's weird" kind of way) and then the subject moves on to something else.
It's your only option.
Same with Blake's mother dying when he was only four, and then we learned she died in a horrible house fire when he was a wildcatter. The explanation for the discrepancy?: the Carrington name "was less famous then," and he didn't want his children to have the terror of another prospective fire, nor envision their grandmother dying in one... Why didn't they hear about it since then? Someone shrugs, and the job is done.
Same with Blake being a self-made man, yet we later we learn his father is fabulously wealthy and living in Sumatra or some fabulously glamorous place I had to find on a map. (The American educational system is not what it could be). Explanation? Daddy Tom helped his eldest son with some start-up funds to help Blake's early infrastructure (probably from cash attained through selling off portions of that nazi art collection) and so Blake reciprocates with shares in his new company which eventually balloon into a massive sum as Denver-Carrington surges.
Will there be problems with the details? Yeah, probably. But, once again, acknowledge those problems, shrug, and change the subject.
Same with the inconsistencies in how long Blake's & Alexis' marriage really was. And what year he caught her with Roger Grimes and threw her out of Blake's kingdom forevah -- 1963, 1964, 1965?? Someone mentions the discrepancy, Blake rubs his face and groans that the last few years of their marriage "was a horrible blur -- your mother & I must've blocked-out so many things, forgotten so much of the darkness of those days," his children listen, look at each other, and then shrug. Rinse & repeat.
But all that's harder -- or easier -- with DYNASTY because they gave us so few details to begin with. And yet, far too many.
Were Jock and Miss Ellie married in 1930? 1936? 1938? It's harder to scam the audience with DALLAS because the kinds of details are different. Shrugging and eye-rolling wouldn't really work so easily. So, clear it up with another fight at the Oil Baron's Ball (because Cliff got the wedding date wrong) and the scuffle obfuscates the incredulities because the guys are so tough and manly and stuff. Mission accomplished, and then they all go home to Southfork to complain about how awful the Barnes/Ewing feud has gotten.
"Listen, Barnes -- Miss Ellie is seven years older than you're sayin' she is....!"
