Menu
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Awards
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Poison your name this Hallowe'en
There's plenty of time to choose your spooky October username
Click here for more details
Forums
Dynasty
Dynasty
Why has Grey's Anatomy succeeded where 80s soaps failed?
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="Michael Torrance" data-source="post: 72837" data-attributes="member: 719"><p>I think the dream season had the potential to stir Dallas into a new direction for some years, but the very dynamic that seemed so promising (JR vs Pam) they quickly undermined by bringing in Angelica Nero and putting the business spotlight on her. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, her plot was not much to write about. But that was not true of many other plots--if anything, some arcs had a lot more meat to them than, say, Dallas. Alexis' entrance and rise to the top was one, much as it was handled clumsily on the business side. Adam's introduction, villain period, and Kirby redemption was another. The Steven plot in the first season was very good, as was the eventual acceptance of him and Luke Fuller by Blake in season five. The problem with Dynasty is that after an arc was over, the characters would act as if the whole arc had not happened. Adam would change personality annually (and sometimes semi-annually). Steven somehow had to rediscover in season 7 that he cannot play the straight husband even for companionship alone. And Alexis would go from hating Blake and wanting to destroy him to making attempts to seduce him at the flip of a switch. I think Dallas, despite its own story flaws and a visual style I found abhorrent, tried to incorporate the idea of character growth and consequences of actions. Dynasty acted as if it were incompatible to its DNA.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Torrance, post: 72837, member: 719"] I think the dream season had the potential to stir Dallas into a new direction for some years, but the very dynamic that seemed so promising (JR vs Pam) they quickly undermined by bringing in Angelica Nero and putting the business spotlight on her. Well, her plot was not much to write about. But that was not true of many other plots--if anything, some arcs had a lot more meat to them than, say, Dallas. Alexis' entrance and rise to the top was one, much as it was handled clumsily on the business side. Adam's introduction, villain period, and Kirby redemption was another. The Steven plot in the first season was very good, as was the eventual acceptance of him and Luke Fuller by Blake in season five. The problem with Dynasty is that after an arc was over, the characters would act as if the whole arc had not happened. Adam would change personality annually (and sometimes semi-annually). Steven somehow had to rediscover in season 7 that he cannot play the straight husband even for companionship alone. And Alexis would go from hating Blake and wanting to destroy him to making attempts to seduce him at the flip of a switch. I think Dallas, despite its own story flaws and a visual style I found abhorrent, tried to incorporate the idea of character growth and consequences of actions. Dynasty acted as if it were incompatible to its DNA. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
6 + 4 =
Post reply
Forums
Dynasty
Dynasty
Why has Grey's Anatomy succeeded where 80s soaps failed?
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