MovieChat Forums > Dynasty (1981) Discussion > What went wrong with DYNASTY ? (Season b...

What went wrong with DYNASTY ? (Season by season)


** SPOILERS! **

Season 1:

The ongoing saga of Denver oil tycoon Blake Carrington and his family (a show the ABC network hopes will compete with CBS's DALLAS, easily the biggest program on earth in 1980).

A somber drama at first, the torments of Krystle, Steven, and Claudia are center stage. The acting is good, and so is the writing. Bill Conti's score and theme add poignant grandeur to the pilot. The pacing is a bit slower than may be required to become a smash hit, but the groundwork for the series is being nicely laid (or is it "lain"?). No, the glitz and glamour aren't anywhere near as flashy as they would later become, but in some ways they're deeper; someone once described Season 1 of DYNASTY as being "all cabernet and dark chocolates and mahogany" and while that might be a slight exaggeration, it's easy to understand the sentiment: the middleclass Blaisdel family may be getting more screen time than some viewers may appreciate, but the Carringtons would never feel more legitimately "rich": the interiors of the mansion are brooding and believable, life on the estate has a certain rarefied flavor, the cultural observations and literary references are convincing of a family bred if not necessarily well.

All the plots nicely coalesce to bring the season to a natural, tragic and fated climax as Blake goes on trial for killing his son's gay lover, resulting in, in the final frame, the arrival of his ex-wife, Alexis, to testify as a hostile witness for the prosecution.


Season 2:

The decision (at first wisely) is made to speed up the pacing and add some glamour to DYNASTY to turn the series, which barely survived the cancellation axe after Season 1, into a bona fide hit. (To be fair, it was against M*A*S*H that brief first year).

Joan Collins seems perfectly cast as Blake's gorgeous and morally challenged ex-wife, with Blake's and Alexis' bitching about why they divorced so intriguing because the viewer suspects they're both largely telling the truth about the other.

Collins captures exactly the Mysterious Slut elements the role requires, and, as an added bonus, it turns out that she and Linda Evans' Krystle seem to display a pitch-perfect adversarial chemistry on-screen. While you can't write that sort of chemistry, you can write to it, which the series initially does masterfully.

And having the nasty ex-wife living three feet from the mansion in her petit trianon was inspired, giving her essentially the run of the new wife's house, much to the latter's frustration.

There's a little bit of the late-'70s TV mini-series odor to Season 2 of DYNASTY. I think of it every time I see the wonderful cobweb-strewn night scene between Alexis and butler Joseph in her darkened art studio, or Alexis' foreboding "reading" from her Rome clairvoyant, or Alexis' references to brawling with an unnamed Oscar-winning actress, or Blake's European villa-hopping to save his oil business and harassment by the faceless Logan Rhinewood ... The past seems real, palpable, if not necessarily present: the secrets, the shadows, the series' National Enquirer tone...

The casting helps immeasurably somehow. Even the ones who may not be the most brilliant of thespians seem nonetheless perfect for their roles.

Because of the increasingly frenetic feeling over Season 2, enhanced by Ben Lazarone's campily operatic score in the latter part of the year, one could easily overlook how this seemingly pell mell lack of structure in fact obscures brilliant structure... Whether this is the accomplishment of new writers/consultants Bob & Eillen Pollock, or line producer Ed Ledding (Ledding was the only Season 2 staffer not with the show in Season 3) is an open question, but Ed de Blasio's equally operatic dialogue is every bit as effective as it still gives legitimate character drive to the bitchy barbs.

Even the poorly edited art studio catfight (then a shock to see the two leading ladies of a television series duke it out) worked, more-or-less, because it seemed like a kitschy anomaly, and grew naturally out of the conflict (and it was the last time the show's soon-to-be-infamous physical slapdowns ever would). And the trendsetting wardrobe was still not so outrageous as to seem excessive or silly.

The finale to Season 2 would, in retrospect, become something of the entire series' spiritual peak, the ride on horseback that Blake and Krystle would take up Scorpio Peak at Sky Crest with Blake left dangling on the precipice somehow metaphorical. It was a key cliffhanger in many more ways than one.

It looked like DYNASTY was going to become the best TV show ever made... and even Warren Beatty quite-improbably called up executive producer, Aaron Spelling, after the Season 2 finale aired and said, "You have the best show on television!"

It's been said (perhaps by me) that if melodrama aims dead-center for the cliche, then you may actually come up with something wonderful, because you find that the cliche (contrary to its reputation) is actually rarely tapped into or perfected. If true, DYNASTY achieved this balance beautifully in Season 2.

If one looks today at the old Nielsen ratings charts, one might not realize how big DYNASTY had already become. Because the ratings from early in the season (before most people had discovered the show) are averaged in to those from the latter part of the year, the final rating for the 1981/82 season only places DYNASTY at 19th place... Not bad, certainly (especially for an era when the three American networks dominated, with little competition from cable or home video, and none from the Internet) yet still not reflective of how huge the series had already become by the end of Season 2, when it had jumped up near the top of the weekly charts and had, for all intents and purposes, become the most talked about show on the air.

Without question, it's the year that put DYNASTY on the map, and the year the show was always trying, however incompetently, to get back to.



Season 3:

Despite Beatty's congratulatory call the previous Spring, Aaron Spelling phoned series creators Richard & Esther Shapiro (who'd only been peripherally involved with Season 2, leaving their pals, Bob & Eileen Pollock to guide the plots) and asked the Shapiros to come back, claiming that DYNASTY was "spiraling out of control." Never a producer seemingly concerned much with quality, "out of control" likely meant money to Spelling. Once the Shapiros had returned, line producer Ed Ledding was gone. And whatever his contribution may have been, with Ledding now absent, the polish and freshness and cohesive cleverness of the previous season is gone as well. Almost completely.

The remaining producers apparently decided if their amping it up a little for season 2 had benefitted the series, then throwing all legitimate storytelling to the wind would be even better. So they further changed the tone of their burgeoning hit show, DYNASTY now taking on a kind of nervous, bourgeois smallness instead.

Immediately, the writing starts to go awry: things don't make sense, non-sequiturs abound, the plotting becomes an afterthought, events are random, narrative cohesion is minimal... Also, the misguided new Static Acting Directive from the producers damages the performances, unnecessarily ruining the feel of many scenes; this new directive seems designed to make the already-poised actors seem even more poised (yet did the opposite) while any narrative logic in the scripts is tossed out the window, with too much dialogue given over to hyperbolic love/hate repartee (and the characters telling each other how fabulous they are) substituting for any kind of focus or flow to the stories... At once, all the characters become equidistant from one another, appear to know each other equally well as if they're all watching DYNASTY every Wednesday evening; they now mostly speak in interchangeable dialogue with individual perspective minimized.

For whatever reason, one scene which for me epitomizes the series' new disorientation is the foolish exchange in the new conservatory set between Blake and Krystle about why they can't go on a second honeymoon because Krystle needs more than 90 days to apologize to her ex, Mark Jennings, for her unfriendliness after Alexis and Fallon tricked him into leaving New York for Denver... Or Krystle's accusation that Blake had hired Jennings as a tennis pro for the dreary-beyond-words La Mirage Hotel in order to punish her in some way, even though, given the place Krystle and Blake are in their relationship at this point, such an accusation seems strangely "retro" at best, the writers grasping at straws.

Gone is any warranted cynicism about wealth and the wealthy, replaced with a dreadful, fawningly '80s "rich-people-are-good/poor-people-are-horrible" mindset. And every corner of the show is now infected, condoning the Carringtons' snobbery.

There is also no longer any sense of location. Any attempts to recreate Colorado, even thru the use of stock footage, are essentially non-existent. The show could now occur anywhere.

Yes, the introduction of snarling, long-lost son Adam (well-cast with Gordon Thomson) and his vaguely incestuous relationship with mother Alexis was a good thing, and the defining storyline of the season. But even that is lessened by the fact that Alexis has been transformed overnight from the grasping and manipulative socialite she was the previous season to brilliant Empress of Industry, with no transition period shown at all. Now that she is the just-add-water Queen of the Planet, she no longer has to purr and scheme and deceive; she simply openly insults and bitches everybody out in every scene, removing the sense of intelligence and mystery she once displayed and, likewise, any sense of her enigmatic back story. She's just a spoiled cow now. Only a cow dressed in fur.

Other new characters are added, but the worst may be the re-casting of troubled occasionally-gay Steven. Al Corley, frustrated by the network's suppression of Steven's sexuality, left the show at the close of Season 2, and the role is re-cast mid-way thru Season 3 with the pinched, tight-jawed presence of Jack Coleman who delivers all his lines through his teeth. It renders Steven's tortured journey irrelevant, as does the writing for him, as his ventures into homoeroticism for the next several years will consist of the rare long, blank glance at the odd nerdy male (that's how you know who's gay) and marrying a succession of women with whom he will remain involved in some capacity long after divorcing them. (And, for those too young to remember: no, this wasn't a step forward even in the '80s).

And Fallon, once a spoiled, sassbox wonder, is de-ovaried and takes on domestic and hotelier duties with resigned placidity. She also decides spontaneously that her dreaded stepmother is wonderful after all.

But the biggest loss is what happens to Krystle, the golden heroine once so soulfully played by Linda Evans. Krystle had at one time provided the moral voice for this show now so contemptuous of such perspective. With the downturn in the writing in season 3, the actors' simultaneous restraint into excessive physical rigidity, and the loss of the producers' interest in anything not reflective of Reagan's smugly mercenary value system, Krystle quickly becomes a vapid and saccharine Stepford wife and exactly the goody-goody Alexis had always (and once unjustly) accused her of. And Evans' performance suffers pointedly: her clear-eyed countenance now increasingly replaced with a cross-eyed squealing of her lines... Just as Vivien Leigh was born to play Scarlett O'Hara, Linda Evans and Joan Collins seemed born to play Krystle and Alexis (as Season 2 gives most vivid evidence). They were perfect casting. Yet as the Good Queen is neglected and trivialized in Season 3 and beyond, the Bad Queen also suffers: Alexis no longer has a valid, statured, female partner with whom to spar.

The balance of the show is now badly off.

By Season 3, it seems clear that the show-runners have developed several strange and misguided ideas about what it is about DYNASTY that makes it work or will make it "better." Regardless, thanks to the clothes, a cast with incredible Q-ratings, and a Spelling/ABC publicity machine keeping the show in the press on a daily basis, the Nielsen numbers will remain mile high for another couple of years.


Season 4:

The 1983/84 year is sometimes cited as the peak season for the wealth-based nighttime soaps of the '80s. And DYNASTY, mentioned even by the Reagans and Princess Diana as a fashion influence, has already changed the cultural vernacular, the word "bitch" taking on a semi-complimentary connotation for the first time (thanks to Alexis, although balancing her villainy with her newly-acquired role model status as a powerful boardroom fixture won't be easy) and even the term "dynasty" -- previously invoked mostly in the context of ancient empires -- is now being used with much greater frequency to describe contemporary families of power. But the electrifying media coverage of DYNASTY is becoming more gripping than the show itself. The goofy, stilted problems from the previous season continue, the characters increasingly lobotomized.

The very first episode of the year is really quite taut and focused (it really is!), but it's all downhill from there: Joseph commits suicide after trying to kill Alexis, but the show never fully explains why he set fire to Steven's cabin with her inside it. We know it has something to do with Alexis holding secrets about Kirby's mother --- but what? She was crazy, we already know that... No matter. After Kirby makes a lame attempt at strangling Alexis, the butler's orphaned daughter agrees to marry her rapist, Adam... Then the show initiates a promising plotline about someone stalking Alexis and ransacking her penthouse suite, yet that plot is dropped and forgotten without explanation... Who was doing it??... Claudia weds Steven so Blake can't take away his child in court, then the couple promptly forgets it was a marriage of convenience... Fallon gets taken in by a slimy slice of Eurotrash, Peter DeVilbis, inexplicably cast with the corpse-like Helmut Berger whose lines appear to be dubbed or shoulda been. When she realizes she's been had by this nasally mumbling opportunist, she runs into traffic and gets one of those Carrington Family Headaches the show seems so fond of; in fact, the headaches get so bad, she suddenly realizes she's loved Jeff Colby all along and wants to remarry him for no convincing reason... Blake's public-relations girl, Tracy Kendall, decides the way to get back at Krystle for taking the promotion she's hoped for is to seduce Krystle's husband in the most lazily-staged, pathetically transparent attempts imaginable... Alexis gets a new boyfriend, the effetely macho Dex Dexter, who just waltzes into her office, lays a kiss on her, and they're together forever! Only their relationship will never make any sense... The cast actually goes to film in Denver for the only time in the series' history, but it remains inside the entire time, ignoring the opportunity to obtain any exterior location footage whatsoever... Diahann Carroll shows up at the end of the year to make a now-obligatory Mysterious Entrance, and she never gets anything else to do for the next three years except hand her brother, Blake, the occasional check to "save my company, dammit!" as she's apparently now his banker.

Nothing goes anywhere. The writers no longer seem to have a story they feel compelled to tell.

At least Alexis briefly takes on a sultry, smoky-voiced sense of her own statured coolness for Season 4, causing her to seem like the only person in the Rocky Mountains who might have even a clue as to what she's actually doing --- although her spontaneous Dietrich solo routine in a cowboy bar to seal some nonsensical oil deal doesn't go far in proving it.

Oh, how good this show seemed to be a just couple of years earlier! For it is unrecognizable now. Only the diamonds and cashmere are of acceptable quality.

Reportedly, the actors have started to complain behind the scenes about all these problems, but the producers tell them "just look at the ratings" to shut them up.

Pamela Sue Martin sized up the problem very succinctly by saying that DYNASTY started out as a witty satire of the rich and famous, but quickly deteriorated into a lame celebration of same. So she left.

Despite the problems, DYNASTY continues to get near-universal praise in the American press, paralleling the Emperor's New Clothes (in this case, literally, but in reverse) "teflon" immunity enjoyed by the Reagan presidency. The show is not just coming to reflect (and be reflected by) the values of the 1980's, it's also reflecting the Denial.




...to be continued

reply

What went wrong with DYNASTY… Part 2:

Season 5:

The season starts out with a difficult-to-define sense of innate confidence: you know it's going to take the Number One spot on the Nielsen charts come spring. Dramatically, it's as inert as ever.

Fallon has supposedly died in a road --- no, air --- accident. And we don't care at all. New Daughter Amanda comes out of the woodwork pronto, correctly cast with purring Catherine Oxenberg, and she can think of nothing to do to create conflict but to sleep with Mummie's hubby as soon as she steps off the jet.

Alexis is charged with murdering Krystle's ex, Mark, at the end of the previous season. And while Alexis' legal issues seem intended to ironically parallel Blake's murder trial three years earlier, it instead serves as a metaphor for how far the show has fallen. It's all handled so foolishly.

Billy Dee Williams briefly joins the show as Diahann Carroll's husband, and they display the best volatile chemistry that any two characters have in ages. So what does the show do? They divorce them, Billy Dee's Brady Lloyd is quickly gone, and replaced by two stiffs: Ali MacGraw and the obviously terminal Rock Hudson.

The show re-writes Krystle's back story (once afraid of horses, she becomes a skilled equestrian from childhood) and we learn Rock Hudson is Sammy Jo's biological daddy.

The show ventures into plots about literal royalty, as Alexis tries to sell off her daughter to the titled leaders of a tiny European principality called Moldavia, coercing her to marry Prince Michael, correctly cast with Michael Praed. Not a bad idea for a show like DYNASTY, but it's as listless and hollow as ever... TV GUIDE wrote an article in the mid-80s which, among other things, detailed the events surrounding the filming of the infamous Moldavian Massacre episode which closed Season 5, pointing out how tense and bored the actors all seemed.

It shows. With the characters all cut from cardboard now, written without nuance, and the Static Acting Directive fully in place, the natural qualities the actors were originally hired for have been siphoned out of them. Every scene is preposterously stiff and unconvincing. And if you're not permitted to believe the actors, you're not going to believe the plotlines, no matter how wild or pedestrian (or, in DYNASTY's case, miraculously both) those plotlines may be.

This series was once described as "overwritten" referring, I believe, to the operatic verbosity of the scripting. That's quite true, of course. Yet DYNASTY simultaneously manages to be under-written as well, with endless exchanges between characters in which the dialogue stops suddenly and nonsensically, reminiscent of old low-budget B and C-movies. It's symptomatic of how the show's writers are putting so much effort into repartee which conveys the characters' feelings for one another (e.g., "I love you because you're marvelous/I hate you because you're a slut") without much thought to plot or more subtle character motivations.

...All dressed up and nowhere to go.

I remember being somewhat infuriated when The Moldavian Massacre first aired in May 1985. Not by the "violence" per se, but by how utterly competent the physical execution of the scene was, as if it was produced by an entirely different team than the one who normally oversaw the series' daily production... It instantly reminded me of how degrading the scripts, the Static Acting Directive, the show's psychology had seemed towards the actors --- not the characters, but the actors themselves --- for a couple of years. As if the brass secretly resented the cast they'd so carefully selected for exactly the qualities for which they'd been selected, resented the fact that they technically needed those actors --- with their faces endlessly splashed over the cover of every magazine printed around the globe --- in order to churn out the product which had already made that brass a fortune... It's as if they were "killing" the actors, objectifying them, as evidenced by the sudden and inexplicable attention and enthusiasm with which the scene was done.

It was like the ultimate re-cast fantasy.

DYNASTY surpasses DALLAS as the Number One show on television by a well-coiffed hair. But the fact that Bobby Ewing's death pulled an even higher viewership than the massacre in Moldavia (reportedly DYNASTY's highest rating in its history) within the same week said a lot about how much audiences really value substantive character-development, something the Carrington Saga had eschewed three years prior: the viewers really felt Bobby's death (despite it being revoked in a year's time) while the overdressed clan in Moldavia were now flimsier than the facial tissue not needed to wipe away non-existent tears over their prospective demises. (Atrocious metaphor, but I can write as badly as they do).

In the press, DALLAS and KNOTS LANDING creator David Jacobs hints that if DYNASTY doesn't start concentrating more on story, then its downfall could be near.


Season 6:

It was nearly a perfect storm: '50s movie king Rock Hudson's diagnosis with AIDS --- the new scourge of the planet --- was announced in the summer of 1985. And the photo frame of Rock kissing Linda Evans a few months earlier on DYNASTY --- the hottest show on the planet --- appeared on the cover of national and international news magazines. And it's a frenzy.

The producers are also hot to get a new spin-off, THE COLBYS, on the air for ABC, a network in the cellar and so desperate for competitive programming that they schedule their biggest show's spinoff for the worst spot in television at that time: Thursday night, where a bevy of NBC comedies regularly wipes everything else off the charts.

It would be claimed by the actors that THE COLBYS was the beginning of the end for DYNASTY, with the producers' attentions distracted away from the parent series. Perhaps. But the problems I witnessed as DYNASTY's Season 6 commenced in the Fall of 1985 were just more of the same: despite the fact that the Moldavian Massacre had become the most talked about episode of any TV series during the calendar year of 1985, the producers' ability to ignore it -- to not pay off on this, what they knew will be their biggest cliffhanger of the entire series -- remained unaffected... How they could develop such a selectively tin ear to public anticipation, response, their own show (or even Nielsen ratings) is a mystery, but when the entire cast of DYNASTY got up off the floor unwounded within the first five minutes of the first installment of Season 6, it wasn't a very good sign about where things were headed. (Admittedly, two minor characters died in the next room, but that didn't suffice or eradicate the fact that the fans had been cheated).

And when the episodic director requested a little more money to help make the massacre aftermath a bit more cinematic (with helicopter shots, etc.), Aaron Spelling dictated that no extra expense was necessary because the show "is already a hit." So the biggest moment in the biggest series from television's biggest producer ever didn't warrant any additional attention, care or budget whatsoever... (What kind of a business model is that, one wonders??)

Over the next four months or so, DYNASTY's ratings dropped from #1 to, at times, out of the Top 15. The introduction to the spin-off was clunky and barely coherent, but the worst part was the DYNASTY stories themselves, epitomized by the Two Krystles plotline which had the show's heroine locked in an attic while her evil twin, Rita (also played by Linda Evans) was impersonating her at the mansion. Amazingly, this theme was originally scheduled to run for six or seven months, twenty-five episodes, until the end of the season. The writers (who seemed to covertly express their self-defeating opinion of the character of Krystle thru Alexis' commentary that she's "boring" and "is only beautiful when she smiles") contrived the doppelganger plotline in order to get Linda Evans to do things as Rita that she correctly refused to do as Krystle. The excruciatingly protracted plot didn't work. Nor did the rest of the show around it.

Yet audience revolt, disappearing numbers, and an increasing barrage of bad press didn't faze the creators. (Show-biz pundit Rona Barrett observed that "DYNASTY used to be a good, trashy show" and "that with the old, good episodes currently being rerun in syndication this fall, the contrast is all too clear.")

Finally, the network, horrified by the ratings plummet of which the writer/producers seemed oblivious (as they blithely vacationed overseas), took the rare step of demanding the production be shut down mid-season and re-tooled... Out was Krystle in the attic (after "only" 10 episodes) following a fun but stupid Krystle-on-Krystle catfight; also out was Alexis' acquisition of the Moldavian throne (perhaps the only loss here was that her coronation scene, already shot, was scrapped).

But, typical of the bosses' penchant for blame-casting, finger-pointing, and "spin", in the press the responsibility for the need for this highly-hyped makeover was placed roundly on the well-padded shoulders of the series' two biggest draws: Linda Evans and Joan Collins... Blame for the instantly infamous Two Krystles plot was dumped on Evans, with assertions that she not only loved the story but that she'd arrived at it herself and recommended it to producers (in fact, she hated it). The entire season's meltdown was blamed on Joan Collins' disappearance in the first episode of the year throwing off all the season's plots insurmountably (Collins was briefly AWOL during a salary dispute) despite the suggestion that DYNASTY's scripting supposedly being this tight was laughable. And when Evans had to miss an emergency meeting with the key actors due to an already contracted hair color commercial shoot in France, one of the Pollocks (responsible for the crash) sniffed about Evans in the media, "Some people think of DYNASTY as a part-time job."

Yeah, some did.

John Forsythe offered a more honest analogy at the time: "The bosses weren't minding the store."

With the cast pared down and the more ridiculous plots out the door and the focus back on the family, the original team showed that they could, in fact, spin a yarn when a gun was held to their heads. The remainder of Season 6 was considerably better than what preceded it and the ratings even went up a bit, but somehow, as was observed in the press, there was just a resigned finality to it all. It didn't seem like a renaissance for DYNASTY so much as a half-hearted death rattle.

Alexis throwing out Blake "and your blonde tramp" when she took over the mansion in the Season 6 cliffhanger was a nice idea, and would seem as if it should be the series' natural peak as the vengeful ex-wife finally achieved her decades-old goal of revenge.

Yet this show, so ripe with potential, had lost its way too long ago.

Season 7:

As the ratings slide continues alarmingly, more "come-back, we've-fixed-it!" public relations campaigns were mounted. The producers again promise they are getting away from the more outrageous elements of Season 6, and re-focusing on the family. Yet most of the effort still seems to be directed at the publicity rather than fixing the show itself...

The fact is, "realism" and the lack of it isn't necessarily defined by how unlikely or bizarre the plots may appear to be on paper. The issue is execution. And the Powers That Be on DYNASTY still seem almost totally disengaged from their own program. As long as the clothes and hair are right, and the Static Acting Directive isn't violated, the makers remain unconcerned with anything else, or so the show airing every Wednesday night in the States would suggest.

Sure, the plots were more earthbound in Season 7. But drabness isn't much better than idiocy and, in this case, the former was just another manifestation of the latter.

Alexis' control of the mansion could have been quite dramatic indeed. It wasn't. Blake taking it back over a few months later could have been quite a turn of events. It wasn't. Krystle's migraines after she and Blake are run off the road could have been interesting. They weren't. As usual, all the plot twists were telegraphed and unconvincing. "Dumbness" ruled the day. Plus, late Season 6 and Season 7 were determined to deliberately -- and inadequately -- revisit old story devices (a la a re-cast Amanda's affair with chauffeur, Michael) as if, superstitiously, this would somehow put the show back where it was five years earlier when everything was new, when everything was exciting, and when everything seemed possible.

Long gone are the all-important moments of artful subtlety once displayed in the "I think I'll read" exchange in the living room between Krystle and Fallon during Season 2. Back then, DYNASTY established its uniqueness by being something akin to a carnival, balancing absurdity with reality. By now, however, everything has been reduced to a kind of deranged puppet show that doesn't come off.

It's now like a daytime soap. A really bad one.

Blake getting amnesia after an oil rig explosion and shacking up with Alexis in Singapore was a good idea, but the show no longer seems capable of pulling anything off anymore. Krystle arrives from the far side of the globe and shows up just to whimper and ring her hands beside her limousine's flat tire. Dreary plots, like Krystina's heart transplant and the suicidal mother of the the heart donor, drag on forever without reason. The depressive Fallmont family is about as equally engrossing.

It's routine by this point in the series that the plots either last too long (usually the bad ones) or the plots don't last longer than the time it takes merely suggesting them (usually the good ones). The furiously wrong-headed scripts have long-showed little reverence for family history or any propensity for short-term memory, sometimes unintentionally contradicting stated plot elements even within a single episode.

Then, at some point mid-way thru the season, the writers somehow decide that the continued Nielsen crash is due to the characters being "too mean", and so Alexis and the other villainous denizens of Denver become -- spontaneously and without explanation -- insipidly humanized, even apologetic (to prove they're all really decent people deep down) until those writers eventually forget about this turn of events as well.

There simply seems to be no creative clarity to be accessed here almost at all. The bosses no longer have any grasp about what "works", regardless of whether the ostensible plotlines are silly or serious.

It's bad enough when a show is totally plot driven instead of character driven, and DYNASTY had not been character driven in years. But it's even worse when it's totally plot driven --- and yet there's no plot!

Brief Amanda replacement, Karen Cellini, observes in an exit interview that "the producers have no idea what they want" for the show (a sentiment echoed by John Forsythe), and revealed her awareness that the audience "really only wants to see Linda and Joan." Yet DALLAS'/KNOTS' creative father, David Jacobs, laments that Joan and Linda "no longer seem like the stars of the show anymore." Years later, Kate O'Mara would quote one of the producers as privately confessing that they made the plots up as they went along (a huge error for a serial). And Joan Collins would describe a "great cynicism" which overtook the executives, an attitude of "Oh, [the audience] is watching, so who cares what we throw them...?"

Sometimes something with great potential, when that potential is squandered or abused, can often become far worse, far more incorrigible, than something which had very little potential to begin with... I recall one reviewer in 1987 comparing --- for some reason or another --- certain TV shows to cuddly animals, stating that DYNASTY was like the neighbor's mongrel dog which keeps dragging decapitated cat heads into the family living room (or words to that effect). Yep, that worked for me. The perverse incompetence bordered on the gruesome.

But as long as nobody gestures too freely, what's the difference? About this time, TV GUIDE ran a piece about "They're Stars but can they Act?" in which celebrated producer, Steven Bochco, said of Linda Evans: "She can't act her way out of a paper bag!" and little disagreement was heard... No one would laugh at Evans' Golden Globe win, tying with the great Barbara Bel Geddes, in 1982, but that seemed a long, long time ago.

To add insult to injury, for some reason the original broadcast prints shown from late Season 6 thru early Season 8 had a blurry, splotchy, absurdly washed-out visual quality which wreaked havoc with the one element of the show still worth watching it for: the "look" of DYNASTY, which was completely compromised as a result. This problem (which appears to have since been fixed for these episodes, at least in some venues) undoubtedly had the effect of pushing the ratings down even further and faster than was already occurring.

Compounding the other problems is an increasingly claustrophobic flavor to S7 and S8 as the maxed-out budget reduces exterior shooting significantly.

And speaking of earthbound plots, over on the collapsing COLBYS spin-off, Fallon #2, incorrectly re-cast with the curvy Brit, Emma Samms, is kidnapped by a flying saucer and whisked away to Mars --- or, where all platinum foil-draped aliens and their decapitated cats reside, Denver.

…to be continued…



--

reply

Season 8:

By fall 1987, there is now the distinct sense that DYNASTY is no longer a hot item. At all. Such a fast fall for a show cited then and now as the series most reflective of its era, which became the most influential show in the medium's history for affecting street fashion, and was #1 in the ratings only two years earlier. In fact, DYNASTY has undergone one of the fastest two-year slides on record for a former Number One show.

Co-creator Esther Shapiro states in the press that, "That was then, this is now," contrasting DYNASTY with a new TV project she's involved in. It seems obvious that the show is on the back burner. Strangely, in some ways it helps: the Static Acting Directive, though still in place and enough to run off actress Leann Hunley by year's end, is allowed to lessen, and the swelling, incongruous music scores which the composers were asked to paint wall-to-wall over every episode in a manner that mirrored the old 1930's/'40s golden age movies, are also markedly pulled back.

As a result, the series relaxes. Unfortunately, despite those continuing public relations campaigns that still insist the show has been "fixed" (or perhaps they meant spayed or neutered?) nothing can be done about the writing. It's as dumb as ever. But somehow it hurts less. Matthew Blaisdel is temporarily cured of death and returns with a battalion of guerilla soldiers to reclaim Krystle. Fallon returns from Mars/Los Angeles, and the show has the atypical self-awareness to make gentle fun of her intergalactic holiday. Blake and Alexis run for governor without a mention of his manslaughter conviction, and without any actual politics entering into the conversation. Alexis' new husband, Sean, is out to kill her. The standard musical beds dynamic continues as the time killer of choice.

It all just feels so juvenile. Even the British press has taken to calling the show "Dysentery."

When Blake utters the season-ending line, "My God, Krystle, I thought we had more time...!" he could be offering up a review of DYNASTY as a whole. As it is, there's little doubt he's right: this sucker is dead as a doornail.

Season 9:

Upon hearing that "a DALLAS head honcho" was being brought in to take over DYNASTY in 1988, I wondered two things: Why bother at this point?, and, given the company's fondness for blame-casting, Are they bringing in somebody new just to take the fall for the obviously imminent cancellation?

News was that, wisely, the new producer was returning Stephanie Beacham, the brightest light of THE COLBYS, to the parent series as well.

At this point, it was genuinely difficult for me to even imagine DYNASTY being fixed, so long had it been off-track and so late in its run it was... I had fantasized numerous, alternative plots which made sense, rewrote in my head many of the stories they had in fact done. But to no avail. I was unable to will the show into good creative health from a distance. So I had long given up. I literally watched it now like a highway accident, mesmerized by how grisly it could get and remain. Like a carcass rotting in the sun (that decapitated cat analogy again).

It's difficult to delineate my emotional reaction when the first episode of Season 9 aired in November 1988, in its new, dreadful timeslot on Thursday night which killed THE COLBYS and was now intended to kill DYNASTY:

Almost for the first time in six years, there was air in the show. Suddenly there was a focused storyline and a sense of dramatic tension. Instantly the show no longer seemed to be actively fighting against nature. "Little" things, like people conversing logically or at least plausibly were occurring. And even Krystle's increasingly shrill, squeaky demeanor (and Evans' performance) over the last half-decade was all forgiven just by having the maid, Jeanette, simply acknowledge it, a years-old brain gizmo soon to be offered up as the specific explanation.

I can't explain how poignant I found it all, this ghostly opening episode of Season 9. The next day or so, USA TODAY pointed out that it was the "most exciting installment of the show in years."

Dark secrets, buried treasure, mysterious deaths from the past, all tied wonderfully to the series' original back story.

No, the ratings wouldn't be salvaged; it was too late for that. And with Linda Evans leaving just a few weeks into the season, and Joan doing only about 60% of the episodes, the end seemed inevitable. But what a relief it was, for those few of us still watching the thing, that David Paulsen was able to give DYNASTY such as dignified and inspired final season... despite an effective-but-cliffhanging final episode which was shot before the cancellation had been made official.

But it left one to forever wonder -- almost hauntingly -- what could have been had the end of Season 2 and the beginning of Season 9 been linked together by half-a-dozen years of material equal to them.

The mind reels. But still I'm grateful for the cherished, ornate bookends that Seasons 1 & 2 and 9 provided for the otherwise empty novel in between.

Oh, and I was right... Whether this had been the original intention of bringing in Paulsen or not, Shapiro would, over the next few years, cite "the new producer" and the show "getting into melodrama" in Season 9 (although it was clearly the least melodramatic year since Season 1) as the cause for the program's cancellation. She also would claim, in her eternally disingenuous way, that the network was trying to "get the original team back" to take over the show.

Yeah, right. Just before they cancelled it.

1991 'Reunion' :

In Spring of 1991, press reports were leaked that the impending DYNASTY reunion was being stalled because Linda Evans wanted too much money. More dirty spin. Her representative then released a counter-statement calling that "a bald-faced lie".

The real problem was that neither Linda Evans nor John Forsythe wanted to do The Reunion because they knew the script (by the original team Shapiro insists that the network was so desperate to get back) was lousy, despite two and a half years to write it... Eventually, Spelling pressured John and Linda to acquiesce and do the show anyway, the duo apparently not willing to go up against their pal and fight too long and hard for another, better script.

It aired in October 1991.

Of course, it was bad, The Reunion. In terms of continuity, as flawed as it was, it certainly was no worse than most years of the weekly series. And at least the Static Acting Directive and the disoriented music score weren't reinstated now that Paulsen was gone.

But what was the impetus to do this Reunion when there was evidently no real interest from the writers in it? Money, one supposes. And likely from some kind of misguided sense of pride which nevertheless didn't seem to propel them into doing a better show back in the '80s.

The first night made the Top 10 in the ratings, despite being against the World Series. But the second part, two nights later bombed big: the audience realized the Reunion wasn't any good, and tuned out.

The brass, it would seem, were unrepentant.

* * * *

When DYNASTY fell apart, it did so by deliberately ignoring nature, the brass seemingly wanting their show and their stars and their characters so preserved and controlled that they could no longer breathe or even live, thus killing meticulously what unique elements the series had to offer... There was simply too much potential here -- it had to die, to Die Nasty; it had to be placed into the hands of jealous saboteurs who then used the pretense of "camp" as a catch-all rationalization for their own malevolent incompetence...


great seasons: 1, 2 and 9

increasingly problematic seasons: 3 thru 8

-

reply

[deleted]

Bravo!! Brilliant observation and review of the series. Thanks for such a detailed great read, I thoroughly enjoyed it:-)

reply

Bless you, TrangPak2!

--

reply

The region 1 DVD for superior Seaon 9 is due out in September. (The Region 1's look far better than the Region 2, BTW).



--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Lee Daniels' new show on FOX, "Empire," is a combination of DYNASTY, DALLAS and THE LION IN WINTER (1968) -- and, so far, it's very good.

In fact, he refers to it as " a black 'Dynasty' ".


--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Prometheus you are completely......WRONG.

Dude....u reminded me of another supposed dynasty fan who bashed all the real dynasty seasons (2-8) (except for S 2) and praised dunasty's worst seasons 1.9

DUDE.............SEASONS 1 AND 9 GOT THE WORST RATINGS CAUSE THEY WERENT'S REAL DYNASTY SHOW.

S1 WAS BORING.....NO ALEXIS THE SHOW WAS TRYING TO FIND IT'S COURSE.

S9 WAS THE WORST WITH NO ALEXIS AND KRYSTLE IN MANY EPISODES AND WITH THAT CRAP TREASURE HUNTING AND WITH FALLON SLEEPING WITH THAT POLICE OFFICER......YAK


DYNASTY REAL SEASONS WERE BETWEEN 2 AND 8 AND THE BEST SEASONS WERE.........4,5,6,7............WITH 7 TO BE THE BEST OF THEM ALL.

Season 7 was great. Sammy joe with steven back again heather and jack had a great chemistry together.....blake and alexis reunion 2 episodes was advertised by tv as well and the ending was also very good with alexis accident and the break in in to the house of blake.

the only flaw was the recasting of Amanda. CAREN SUCKED.


DUDE ... JACK COLEMAN WAS THE BEST STEVEN....BETTER EVEN THAN AL CORLEY.

EMMA SAMMS WAS AS GREAT AS MAMELA SUE WAS AS FALLON.


I HAD ENOUGH WITH FLOPS SAYING S 1 AND 9 WERE THE BEST SEASONS.



YOU ARE TROLLS INSULTING THE TRUE DYNASTY FANS.


DUDE.....FOR CHRIST SAKE IF U DID NOT LIKED SEASONS 3-8 THEN REALLY HOW DID U WATCHED THE SERIES ALL THOSE YEARS ?

You did not liked season 3 but u went on to see all seasons no matter u hated them until 1989 ?

THAT'S BULL.


90% of dynasty were S 3-8.

CUT THE CRAP.


DYNASTY WAS GREAT EXCEPT S1 AND S9 AND IT'S ABOUT SCEMES, DRAMA, OUTRAGE STORIES, ROMANCES AND CAT FIGHTS..............THAT'S DYNASTY.

WHAT U SAY DYNASTY SHOULD BE..................IT'S NOT REAL DYNASTY.



COMPRENTE DUDE ?


AND THE REUNION WAS GREAT STORY ALSO MUCH BETTER THAN S 9 WITH THAT CONSORTIUM STORY AND THE FLAW WAS THAT THE REAL ADAM DID NOT RETURNED NOR DEX NOT STEVEN.

Al Corley should not return as his face was burned and had surgery in early season 3 as the official plot was so that coleman could replace him and that plot was ignored in the reunion.


U HAD ENOUGH PROOF HOW WRONG U ARE ?

GOOD.

reply

Prometheus you are completely......WRONG.

Dude....u reminded me of another supposed dynasty fan who bashed all the real dynasty seasons (2-8) (except for S 2) and praised dunasty's worst seasons 1.9

DUDE.............SEASONS 1 AND 9 GOT THE WORST RATINGS CAUSE THEY WERENT'S REAL DYNASTY SHOW.

S1 WAS BORING.....NO ALEXIS THE SHOW WAS TRYING TO FIND IT'S COURSE.

S9 WAS THE WORST WITH NO ALEXIS AND KRYSTLE IN MANY EPISODES AND WITH THAT CRAP TREASURE HUNTING AND WITH FALLON SLEEPING WITH THAT POLICE OFFICER......YAK


DYNASTY REAL SEASONS WERE BETWEEN 2 AND 8 AND THE BEST SEASONS WERE.........4,5,6,7............WITH 7 TO BE THE BEST OF THEM ALL.

Season 7 was great. Sammy joe with steven back again heather and jack had a great chemistry together.....blake and alexis reunion 2 episodes was advertised by tv as well and the ending was also very good with alexis accident and the break in in to the house of blake.

the only flaw was the recasting of Amanda. CAREN SUCKED.


DUDE ... JACK COLEMAN WAS THE BEST STEVEN....BETTER EVEN THAN AL CORLEY.

EMMA SAMMS WAS AS GREAT AS MAMELA SUE WAS AS FALLON.


I HAD ENOUGH WITH FLOPS SAYING S 1 AND 9 WERE THE BEST SEASONS.



YOU ARE TROLLS INSULTING THE TRUE DYNASTY FANS.


DUDE.....FOR CHRIST SAKE IF U DID NOT LIKED SEASONS 3-8 THEN REALLY HOW DID U WATCHED THE SERIES ALL THOSE YEARS ?

You did not liked season 3 but u went on to see all seasons no matter u hated them until 1989 ?

THAT'S BULL.


90% of dynasty were S 3-8.

CUT THE CRAP.


DYNASTY WAS GREAT EXCEPT S1 AND S9 AND IT'S ABOUT SCEMES, DRAMA, OUTRAGE STORIES, ROMANCES AND CAT FIGHTS..............THAT'S DYNASTY.

WHAT U SAY DYNASTY SHOULD BE..................IT'S NOT REAL DYNASTY.



COMPRENTE DUDE ?


AND THE REUNION WAS GREAT STORY ALSO MUCH BETTER THAN S 9 WITH THAT CONSORTIUM STORY AND THE FLAW WAS THAT THE REAL ADAM DID NOT RETURNED NOR DEX NOT STEVEN.

Al Corley should not return as his face was burned and had surgery in early season 3 as the official plot was so that coleman could replace him and that plot was ignored in the reunion.


U HAD ENOUGH PROOF HOW WRONG U ARE ?

GOOD.


Gee.... you're really an interesting one.

Well, you may call Season 7 the "best year" of DYNASTY and the 1991 Reunion "great!"

But regardless of their overall opinion of the series and its various phases, most fans are unified in their view that Season 7 (especially the latter half) was the worst, with Season 8 a close competitor. And that the 1991 Reunion was an abomination (although I was fine with the first half of it).

Enjoy your hemlock, however.



--

reply

Yeah most fans agree U ARE WRONG when u dismiss almost the entire show and u did not answered why u watched the series AFTER SEASON 2 IF U DID NOT LIKED IT ?

GOT U NOW ?

reply

ha ha.....later half of season 7 with blake and alexis reliving their love affair and with Sammy joe trying to get steven back WAS THE GREATEST HALF OF A SHOW I EVER WATCHED.

Just listen to that divine music in that episode (I think it was 2 episodes before the VALLEZ episode when Sammy joe puts cologne and makes a move to seduce steven but fails at first) and u will see the great chemistry those two had .

those 4-5 episodes with steven and Sammy joe were ALL THE MONEY.

S 5 also was great with Amanda and dex story and only in season 8 things started to fall apart but not like they did with season 9.

dude......THE ONLY REASON RATINGS DROPED AFTER SEASON 7 WAS THE FACT THAT SOAPS IN GENERAL WERE IN DECLINE IN LATE 80S.

ALL THE OLD SHOWS......DALLAS, FALCON CREST...ETC....DROPED AT RATINGS....ALL OF THEM....NOT JUST DYNASTY....BUT U DON'T MENTION THAT....DO YOU ?


I TOLD YOU........THIS IS A DYNASTY FANS BOARD......GOT IT NOW ?

reply


Yeah most fans agree U ARE WRONG when u dismiss almost the entire show and u did not answered why u watched the series AFTER SEASON 2 IF U DID NOT LIKED IT ?

GOT U NOW ?


How would I have known how bad they were (at least S3 thru S8) unless I saw them all?

It's odd how many DYNASTY fans assert you have to be "a fan" or "a real fan" in order to talk about the show. Most fans of other series aren't that defensive in their fandom.

While I do consider myself to be a pointed fan of Seasons 1, 2 & 9, and even fan of what the interim seasons promised to be yet didn't deliver, not everyone who posts on IMDb or this page is required to be a fan at all.

I'm sorry you think I should be, and I'm sorry you think I'm not, but should that matter?


ha ha.....later half of season 7 with blake and alexis reliving their love affair and with Sammy joe trying to get steven back WAS THE GREATEST HALF OF A SHOW I EVER WATCHED.

Just listen to that divine music in that episode (I think it was 2 episodes before the VALLEZ episode when Sammy joe puts cologne and makes a move to seduce steven but fails at first) and u will see the great chemistry those two had .

I believe you feel that way, and that's great. But most "real fans" complain a great deal about how bad their favorite show had gotten by Season 7 and 8.

Plus, the series went into a record two-year crash in the ratings for a former #1 show between S6 and S8. So a lot of people must have agreed with those other "real fans" and not with you.



those 4-5 episodes with steven and Sammy joe were ALL THE MONEY.

S 5 also was great with Amanda and dex story and only in season 8 things started to fall apart but not like they did with season 9.

I'm glad you enjoyed that, too.



dude......THE ONLY REASON RATINGS DROPED AFTER SEASON 7 WAS THE FACT THAT SOAPS IN GENERAL WERE IN DECLINE IN LATE 80S.

ALL THE OLD SHOWS......DALLAS, FALCON CREST...ETC....DROPED AT RATINGS....ALL OF THEM....NOT JUST DYNASTY....BUT U DON'T MENTION THAT....DO YOU ?

Actually, I mention that quite a lot. And there was a reason DYNASTY was crashing faster than the other three.



I TOLD YOU........THIS IS A DYNASTY FANS BOARD......

No. It's not.


GOT IT NOW ?

Paranoid schizophrenia? No, but thank you.

--

reply

1) how u would know ? how u would know ? Let me tell you now how and prove to all here what a liar cheat fake dynasty fan u are.

So u loved seasons 1 and 2 but at season 3 u realized u don't like the direction the show went in too. I can understand that u gave the show another chance since u loved it at first but not in season 3 so u watched season 4 also to see if there is a change for the better BUT DUDE WHEN U SAW THINGS TURNED TO WORST IN SEASON 4 AND THEN IN 5 (in your view) THEN WHY U WATCHED IT UNTIL THE END ?

I now got u for good. if u really disliked season 3 and then season 4 but u kept watching it then it's not me who needs help........IT'S U WHO NEED HELP AND PILLS.

When normal people don't like a show they may watch one more season to give it a chance BUT THEY STOP AFTER THEY FIND OUT THEY DON'T LIKE THE SHOW BUT U CONTINUED AND CONTINUED.......AND CONTINUED FOR LIKE 6 MORE SEASONS ? MY GOD.......EITHER U ARE TROLLING OR U ARE A PSYCHO......BUT FOR SURE U ARE NOT A DYNASTY FAN.

2) How is an 18 rating bad that season 7 got and even a 15 rating was not bad either for season 8 at a time when all soaps collapsed.
season 5 got an 25 rating that was extreme even for a soap.
season 6 got a 22 rating and was tied with dallas in 6th place in 86.
yes after that dallas held better but not other soaps. only dallas held respectable numbers and was in top 30 until 1989.

dynasty season 7 was still in the top 30 and season 8 was just outside the top 30 in no 33.

only when season 9 came ratings really plummeted and the show was no 57 even lower than season 1 which was at no 40 and u dare to say SEASON 9 WAS THE BEST ?

AND THAT FANS AGREE WITH YOU ? NUMBERS PROVED U WRONG.....U LOST...I BEAT YOU AS I DO WITH ALL THE TROLLS........SEASONS 1 AND 9 HAD THE WORST RATINGS SO DEBATE IS OVER.

3) There was not only the great romance stories I mentioned that made great the show between seasons 2 and 8. I agree first half of season 6 was boring with two crystles...etc......but second half was great with the introduction of BEN and the revenge alexis got over blake at the end.
The return of blaisdel was a nice surprise in season 7 and rowan was a great villain in season 8

DYNASTY ROCKED ALL THE WAY AND ONLY WAS FINISHED WHEN ALL SOAPS WERE FINISHED BY 1990. EVEN DALLAS COLLAPSED IN 1990 AND IT WAS CANSELLED IN 1991.
FALCON CREST WAS CANSELLED SAME YEAR AS DYNASTY AND ONLY KNOTS LANDING LASTED UNTIL 1993 SO YOUR CASE THAT DYNASTY WAS FINISHED EARLIER THAN THE OTHER SOAPS......................IS BULL U LIER.

FROM 1989 TO 1991 ALL SOAPS WERE FINISHED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF KNOTS LANDING AND DYNASTY WAS AMONG THEM IN 1989 SO ADMIT U ARE WRONG.

4) Usually the fans who love the show post in these boards NOT THE HATERS. That's what I meant. why post here if u don't lke the show ?
U ADMIT U DISLIKED 6 SEASONS AND THE REUNION AND U CAL YOURSELF A FAN AND ALSO U SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE FANS ? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


5) Who is now having a paranoid schizo.....etc ?

CERTAINLY NOT ME. I LOVE DYNASTY ALL SEASONS.....I'M NOT LIKE YOU....I'M NOT A TROLL HATER.............I EXPOSED YOU AND NOW PEOPLE CAN SEE WHO IS A REAL FAN AND
WHO GOT HUMILIATED.

PS.

U should expect a defeat like that when u come to a board insulting the greatest soap in the history of television to which only DALLAS can be compared.



"TRUTH HURTS THE TROLLS.............MAALOX CURES THEM"

reply

.......EITHER U ARE TROLLING OR U ARE A PSYCHO......

Some of us don't have to choose.

--

reply

Ah....ok u are both then...that figures......and of course u could not answered why u kept watching the show after season 3 when u did not liked it.

yeah it figures a lot about you.....but not worry I already fixed this board to the regular and real DYNASTY FANS.

reply

But if I hadn't watched them all the way through, then how would I have known had bad they got (except of course for wonderful Season 9)?

--

reply

When u say season 9 was wonderful when it had the worst ratings from all dynasty seasons and at the same time u dispatch all dynasty's best ratings seasons PROVES WHAT A TROLL U ARE.

DYNASTY WAS REMEMBERED FROM SEASONS 3-4 TO 6-7 NOT FROM SEASON 9.

GOT THAT ?

reply

But everybody hated Season 7. It was really the year that killed the show.

--


reply

Season 9 killed the show....not season 7. season 7 was viewd by 18 millions. and was no 24 in America. season 9 flopped at no 57 and with a rating lower than 10 and that killed the show SO STOP TROLLING.

SEASON 7 WAS THE LAST REAL DYNASTY SEASON AND EVERYBODY LOVED THE TWO PART EPISODE WITH BLAKE AND ALEXIS LOVE REUNION.

SEASON 7 WOULD BE REMEMBERED FROM THIS EPISODE...........WHICH EPISODE IS TO BE REMEMBERED FROM SEASON 9 ? NO EPISODE.

I'M A DIE HARD DYNASTY FAN AND FOR ME SEASON 7 WAS THE BEST....SO NOT ALL HATED SEASON 7. IN TERMS OF RATINGS SEASON 7 WAS BEHIND ONLY FROM SEASONS 3,4,5,6 SO IT WAS NOT THE MOST UNPOPULAR. KIT WAS IN THE MIDDLE. THE MOST UNPOPULAR WAS SEASON 9 SO GET OVER IT.

U SUPPORT TWO OF DYNASTY'S MOST UNPOPULAR SEASONS. 1 AND 9 THAT'S THE FACT.

reply

Oh, no. Season 7 is always least popular among fans.

Between Season 6 and Season 8, DYNASTY underwent one of the fastest two-year ratings drops in history for a former #1 show.

By Season 9, ABC had already given up and moved the show into what they knew would be a dead-end timeslot.

--

reply

Per chance, to dream.

--

reply

Thanks a lot for getting the imdb boards shut down

reply

Thanks a lot for getting the imdb boards shut down

Non-sequiturs were always your speed, Nivea.

--

reply

Fnck off, season 9 was terrible and not at all Dynasty.

reply

I always have to laugh that no one remembers they did try to explained why more people didnt. One of the revolutionaries is speaking with Dominique he says I like you that is why I made sure you were hit with rubber bullets. Um okay that makes little sense.

reply

LOL!

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA


reply

"one could easily overlook how this seemingly pell mell lack of structure in fact obscures brilliant structure."

You are insane. The biggest problem with season 2 is that there is no structure. The writing sucks donkey balls compared to season 1. Steven's storyline is just awful and illogical, they pair him off with Sammy Jo very early on but it soon goes nowhere. Then they try to force the thoroughly unlikeable Nick Toscanni into every other storyline and it doesn't work at all. The writers also can't seem to make up their mind whether he's a saint or a bad guy, sincere or two-faced. It's absolutely maddening. And sure, they introduce some nice soapy ideas (even involving Nick), but they are never properly developed. And most of the cast of season 1 are just underused or wander around being pathetic (besides Steven, also Fallon, Jeff, Cecil). Even Joan Collins is not used to her full potential. It's a disgrace. I can't believe how overrated season 2 is. One of the few hightlights was Joseph and his witty quips. I wish they had continued with that.

reply

As you said, the Carrington's would never again be as rich as they seemed in season #1 with Blake never again seeming so powerful. The series begins with Blake having business problems with his oil wells/tankers being nationalized, and even before Alexis arrives, he never seems to recover. He is struggling to keep Denver-Carrington going for the rest of the series. Blake seems to have hit his business peak before the series started in the background story.

The control he's had over his life for the past couple of decades is slipping. He's having to address problems with both of his children. He's also going to have problems with a brooding and perpetually moody new wife.

Season #1 promised more political and social content with Fallon and Jeff arguing about the role and responsibility of the rich and arguing the pros and cons of capitalism. Also, we are expected to feel for the plight of the "poor" Blaisdel family even though as a geologist/engineer, Matthew Blaisdel was really not that poor. However, his wants, even if it's rich Blake's wife, are supposed to draw the viewer in. Essentially, Blaisdel is what Blake was 20 years ago and through his involvement in Lankershim Blaisdel Oil, hopes to become what Blake is. The viewer is asked to root for Blaisdel's efforts to improve his lot in life and get rich, but to detest Blake for wanting to grow his already established, but struggling business and get richer, the message being, once you've already won the Super Bowl, there is no reason to want to win it again, and if you do, it's just greed. The desire to get rich is okay, but the deisre to get richer is not.

Season 1 hopes to involve the viewers in the story of the Blaisdel family; however, between Matthew's pouting and sulking and Lindsey's constant crying, viewers can't seem to stand this family. The only one who resonates with viewers is Claudia who essentially went crazy because she loved her husband and he didn't love her. So, it was no coincidence that Claudia was back for several more seasons while Matthew and Lindsey were gone at the end of season 1.

Season one was something of a misfire in that it was structured around a poorly structured love triangle. While the Ewings and Barnes family were linked by Jock and Digger's early business partnership, the ONLY thing linking the Carringtons and the Blaisdels was a certain part of Krystle's anatomy and the fact that Blaisdel and Blake both had it with Blaisdel having it first.

Based on this plot fact, the writers ask the viewers to have empathy for Krystle and Matthew and their former ill-fated love, almost telegraphing to the viewers that both will work their way out of the marriages and find their way back to each other. The viewer is supposed to understand when Matthew treats his wife badly for not being Krystle and to understand when Krystle only loves Blake conditionally as long as he helps Matthew out financially.

But when the Blaisdels and this love triangle does not resonate with viewers, this storyline had to be abruptyly dropped and the show would be restructured around a vengeful ex wife.

reply

You're being funny, right?

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Being funny in which way?

I was a huge DYNASTY fan back in the 80s (as well as KNOTS LANDING) and used to read all the 'TV columns' and 'TV magazines' back then, each publication trying to have the biggest scoop before the others. That is one of the 'secrets' which was reported.

(About two years ago, I finally tossed all those magazines out from that decade, after trying to sell them on eBay.)

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand







reply

I don't recall hearing that possibility back then, but I do recall one rumor that she was going to be Kirby's mother. It makes me wonder whether the writers knew themselves until the last possible moment. Kirby was originally going to be Blake's daughter, but that was scrapped and they went with the SABRINA/UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS story.

I'm somebody else. I'm white... white... WHITE!

reply

You're being a condescending, moronic biotch, right? Right.

reply

So you disagree that the Matthew/Krystle thing was a misfire from which the show had to recover and reset, going with the vengeful ex wife angle. You never heard how poorly received the Blaisdel family arc was received by the viewers?

reply

The Blaisdels weren't terribly compelling, no (except for Claudia) but their lack of popularity wasn't because Blake was correctly shown as a heel.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

I never thought anything would make us agree about anything, but I do find it comical that Kimmy is so possessive of the board that he can't stand to see anyone else posting. I like to think I am largely responsible for his going off the deep end.

No, the Blaisdels were not compelling. I think a big part of that was that there was no viewer empathy for the Blaisdel/Krystle relationship. Having never seen them as a couple and only being told that they were lovers in the background story, viewers just could not empathize since they both had spouses, one of them a new spouse, at home.

I think the original intent may have been for the show to focus on Matthew and Krystle perhaps finding their way back to each other,but with the Blaisdel's being unpopular, they had to reset or recalibrate the show around a new character, the vengeful ex. Krystle and Matthew were just not coming off like Jack and Rose from Titanic years later. Instead, viewers felt bad for Blake and Claudia, especially Claudia, I think. They tried to justify Matthew and Krystle by presenting Blake badly, but still there were no takers.

We've had this argument before, but Blaisdel coming to the mansion and telling Krystle he loved her, and Krystle later giving Matthew the necklace, proved this was not all in Blake's head. He was not being paranoid. There was a basis to his fears about losing his wife.

He's not exactly a heel for not getting with the program and supporting his wife's love for another man. As far as the necklace business, Krystle was married to Blake, not Matthew.

We disagree about this and that's fine. My main point is that the whole Krystle/Matthew thing was a misfire from day one. I mean, saintly Krystle having an affair with a man she KNEW to be married and then looking at Fallon with stunned disbelief as Fallon kissed members of Blake's football team, as if Krystle was so morally superior to them all.

Remember when Krystle told her friend about her plan to help Matthew and the friend asked which one she was in love with, and Krystle said, Blake, "of course". Of course?

reply

What did you think of the plot retcon in season 9 where 9 year old Fallon was shown to have killed a perfectly healthy Roger Grimes instead of Grimes having been disabled by Blake as we were previously told?

What did you think of the Blake/Ben/Ellen Carrington storyline/tragedy?(another retcon by the way)

reply

The Roger Grimes thing had been adjusted more than once before Season 9. By Season 5, they were saying that Blake and Alexis attempted a reconciliation weeks later, and that that fell thru again, but allowed Amanda to be conceived.

So one could argue that after several weeks in the hospital, Grimes was well enough to meet up with Alexis at the cottage after her reconciliation attempt with Blake had failed... Of course, it would be nicer if they'd actually said that, instead of us having to fan-wank it.

And, yes, the fire that killed Blake's mother. In Season 2, he told Fallon he was 4 years old when his mother died...

But there's always a way to make these flubs in the backstory make sense. You create an umbrella story, or simply say someone was lying.

Blake never told Fallon or Steven about even the existence of Adam until she showed up on their Denver door step a 26 year old man. So he could have conceivably lied to his children to "protect them" from the scandal of the fire.

Likewise, the contradiction of Alexis in S2 claiming that the D.A. told her that Roger Grimes had died "two months ago" in prison with his winding up at the bottom of that lake 17 years earlier could be explained by the suggestion that the D.A. lied to her to manipulate her into coming to Denver to testify against Blake.

But again, those things need to be said. We shouldn't have to fill in the blanks.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

"Likewise, the contradiction of Alexis in S2 claiming that the D.A. told her that Roger Grimes had died "two months ago" in prison with his winding up at the bottom of that lake 17 years earlier could be explained by the suggestion that the D.A. lied to her to manipulate her into coming to Denver to testify against Blake."

No, it could not. What a ridiculous idea. It was simply a moronic retcon from your boyfriend Paulsen.

reply

@ PrometheusTree64
Although I think you are a little too hard on the seasons 3-6, I want to thank you for this superb "review" on the series. There is so much I have to look out for, when I start watching again from the beginning.

At the moment I'm in the middle of season 9. It's been ten years since I watched the final season and because of that I hardly remember anything that happens... aside from the cliffhanger of course. What I did remember was that I thought after the rather disappointing seasons 7 and 8 that the ninth had a huge boost in quality. And now I can see, that my memory was right. The final season is really good in my opinion and it's tragic, that the series got cancelled after this amazing "rebirth". So I'm looking forward to see what happens next and still fight with myself over the decision wether to watch the reunion afterwards or not. I've never seen the reunion so it's a hard decision since the critics/reviews are so bad.

So, let me thank you again for this wonderful review that had a few tidbits I didn't know. :)

reply

Thanks, BillyLoomis1982!

--

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Lol, nice sock, Prometheus. Just like the tellytalk boards. In reality, everybody else hates season 9.

reply

[deleted]

Do you think Dynasty went wrong by making Blake progressively weaker as the series went on, almost a business buffoon by the end after portraying him as something of a bad ass when the series started?

I am thinking that Dallas made the same mistake with J.R. and Falcon Crest made the same mistake with Richard, sending him to prison at the end of the next to last season.

reply

But everybody was made progressively weaker.

--

reply

There is no proof at all of static acting at all and how do you do major cat fights if all the actors must at all times be ramrod straight and poised and allow for no motions? How do you do a lilly pond fight staticly. How do you do a mud fight staticly? How do you do blake strangling alexis staticly? Where is any proof no one was allowed to move? How do you even do that? The proof being that one actor could move her hands in one scene the way SHE wanted? This is so stupid and bizarre. Where is any proof of pollocks or Shapiro saying " we have this great thing known as static acting!!" Why did the actors deal with not being allowed to move? And how did they reconcile that with cat fights and brawls? Should I say static catfights and static brawls? Like Linda Evans and her evil twin. Yeah her evil twin was so static attacking joel in the car! No movement there. No movement from Evans when she was attacking Alexis! HAve some common sense with a major theme of your really dumb and idiotic theory of static acting that doesnt' exist.

reply

John Forsythe verified it. Leann Hunley verified it. And the show verified it. (Obviously, the static acting directive didn't mean that they "didn't move" when they were having a fight).

Just because you "don't like" something, Niv-1, has nothing to do with the truth.

Plus, you're crazy. And infamous on various soap/dynasty websites.

--

reply

No they didn't verify it! Leann Hunley said nothing of the kind. Only that one point during one fight she couldn't move her hands as much as she wanted! And she was always moving her hands way too much! I just saw the episode where Adam proposes to her and just weird hand movements that made no sense! I could see why the director told her to tone it down! She was ridiculous. I also read what you say is Forsythe verifying it and it is nothing of the kind! He did not say static acting directive at all.

You are just the worst liar peddling your ridiculous theory! Where are the pollocks quotes and shaprios quotes on it? Why are you acting like it was some big secret of the production of dynasty that got out! Was leaked? There was nothing of the kind. ANd you are so insane you don't even remember you say "oh well Collins was exempt!" How could the lead of the show be exempt from something everyone else was doing. SHe was arguably the most important person and she was exempt! LOL. You and this theory make no sense at all. You post it over and over and over from sites A to Z! AMazon all the way to Ultimate dynasty! But yet never ever a quote from the pollocks or shapiros or any of the directors or actors about not being allowed to move ever.

I would like the questioned answered about how not being allowed to move applies in a cat fight? LOL!! Yeah those slaps and cat fights really are all about not moving and being poised! You make no sense.

I am not on any other sites. You are lying because you are just the worst troll ever.

reply

I am not on any other sites. You are lying because you are just the worst troll ever.
You're ... just ... frikkin' .... nuts.

Yes, Forsythe verified in a 2000 interview that they were told to be "very, very still" consistent with old MGM films of the golden age. And Leann Hunley verified it in 1988. And guests on the set observed that the producers "rushed" the actors when they moved too freely. (When TV Guide contacted the producers in '88 about the Static Acting Directive, they refused to respond).

It was an open secret. Why Collins seemed to be exempt -- who knows? Either because she was the wicked witch or perhaps Joan refused and they gave in because she was, indeed, the key character.

Plus, there's the show itself. It's clear from Season 3 on that this was going on, and it was obvious to us for 5 years before Hunley ever spilled the beans.

In other threads, Niv-1, you've tried to claim it was just due to "bad actors." But many of those actors who were "bad" had been just fine during Seasons 1 & 2 before the static acting directive was implemented.

Or do you just think they all had a group lobotomy during the summer of 1982..?

--

reply

What does still even mean the way you are saying? What was the context of the statement forsythe said? You are not going with the context at all. Yeah Forsythe was very very still when he went to strangle alexis! That was so still! No movement there! What are you thinking of? Helmut was a terrible horrible actor but Michael NAder was not and was never still and unmoving. You are saying dynasty was a show where the actors never moved. That they were very still and poised and told not to ever move to be a mannequin for clothes or something like too much movement means no class or something? But they why would Alexis and Krystle have a cat fight in a pond? Why would Blake go to Strangle Alexis? Why would Dex and Alexis have a major fight in her hotel room? Why would Krystle and Rock Hudson character have that scene where they kiss? What are you talking about. I know what Leann Hunley said about her hands. Watch her! She was ridiculous with the over movement of her hands? I just don't know what you mean? Like very still during the episode ending freze frames sometimes?

No one ever said what you are saying? Why have it be a secret or an open secret? What was wrong with it that they were so ashamed by it that they would implement it but never talk about it? What are you saying about the shapiros and the Pollocks and aaron spelling. Spelling was a total open book on all his shows and books have been written about arron spelling but no one ever said anything about him having a static acting directive and how he felt about it!

reply

Niv-1, you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. I've given you context and quotes before and you ALWAYS find a way to negate it and dismiss it.

And I certainly never said that the actors "never moved" at all. That's stupid.

But you want what you want. Even though none of that has anything to do with the truth.

And you just make things up left and right -- which requires accusing others of doing so (when they're not) just so your malarkey will makes some sense.

You're also a a whackjob, and so am I for even engaging you.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

The context does no point to Aaron spelling or the pollocks or shapiros having a directive to all actors that they always remain very still. Like was Blake strangling Alexis an exception? His about Dominque singing and fainting on stage? Aaron spelling has had books written about him and Carroll wrote a book and in nothing I can find was there ever anything about a producer implemented directive on the style of acting that all the actors must do? This just not exist.

reply

Check with your physician, Niv. You just might be a maniac!

--

reply

I gave you the benefit of the doubt about your theory and there is absolutely no evidence of it from any of the producers! Books have been written by people about aaron spelling and nothing. Actors like diahann carroll and nothing. You say there was a producer direction that all the actors be still and "static" and not allowed to move a lot and be so poised so much so that that the acting of the show was completely destroyed and there is no evidence of it all from any source. Why would Pamela SUe MArtin and Al Corley keep it secret? Why would the pollocks and shapiros and spellings never ever talk about it? What are you talking about? It is the overarching theme of "what went wrong" and there is no proof no evidence. No nothing. How did Forsythe accept being told to never move and be static and have a scene where he strangles alexis? How was that static? What is your proof and evidence of a producer direction of never moving?

reply

You "gave me the benefit of the doubt about my theory" ??

How so? By spewing your soul-defining bile as you always do?

Your argument for ignoring the actors' statments about the static acting directive is to say the actor is "irrelevant" or taken "out of context." And your evidence that there was no static acting directive is that when there was an on-screen fight, people actually moved.

And Al Corley was gone before it was implemented in Season 3.

So you're not just crazy. You're also stupid. Because you're not even reading the posts --- you're just reacting.

Like a maniac.


--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

You have no idea what you are talking about when discussing the acting on the show. Movement by actors does go against your whole theory of the actors being static! You say there was a producer created static acting directive. The static acting involved a very limited movement which you call poise! So how is blake strangling alexis poised or static? How is a major fight between any characters poised or static. How is a fainting collapse on stage static or poised? What are you talking about.

Leann Hunley was told once not to move her hands so much. That is not a static acting directive by the producers. One director telling her not to move her hands so much. Forsythe saying that sometimes they were told how to stand is just common stuff. It is what directors do. There is no evidence of the pollocks shaprios or spelling or carroll or Collins or evans or forstythe or hunley ever saying even once there was a producer implemented static acting directive? Why? Books have been written about SPelling and by cast memebers of dynasty and nothing! It is never ever mentioned once.

Any movment by the actors like a fight or a fainting spell does go against what you say about any kind of static acting directive. Because that required them not to be static. ANd I have done so much researching of this topic by looking up shapiros and spellings and pollocks and Collins and evans and so many people which includes forsythe and leann hunley and it is not ever mentioned ever.

reply

But you just make stuff up, Niv-1. Left and right. And you don't even read the posts, you just react.

And you keep doing this! Sometimes it almost sounds like you're crazy.

Is that possible??

--


reply

your theory is crazy and you keep posting this same nonsense over and over and over and on site after site after site!! It's like you don't even know how to prove theories by linking to interviews with the pollocks shapiros or spelling. You say it was a producer implemented theory to act in a very static way! So post a link to some producer talking about it! Post a link to where Joan Collins or Linda Evans talk about it. Post a link to leann hunley or john forsythe. Prove the theory you can't because it is nonsense.

reply

How would you know? You never even read the responses. You just insist people fighting means there was "no static acting directive" because they had to move in order to fight.

And you also insist there are no interviews supporting ths static acting directive even after you've discounted each one (becuse you're apparently familiar with them!)

Looks like you're a maniac, Niv-1.

There are pills for this, but you'll never take them.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

you need to take some medication because you concocted a whole acting theory from nothing and the sources you try to use to support it absolutely do not in any way! I have to bring up your sources for it because they do not support what you say at all in any way about a producer implemented acting style that must be followed by all the actors!! You do not even know what you are saying anymore and refuse to read what you say are sources properly! You only read them as supporting your theory and they do not which is totally scary and shows that you need to be on medication or need reading comprehension classes!!! Yes all movement goes against what you say was demanded of the actors in the so called static acting method which you totally made up as coming from the pollocks shapiros and spelling! There is no proof! Get help!

reply

Everyone is aware of the static acting directive. And you don't even read the reponses anyway.

You're just batcrap nuts.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

Everyone??! Google the term like I did! Go to google books as well like I did! You are the only one who even says the pollocks spelling and shapiros mandated such a thing! How can everyone be aware of something that never existed.

reply

But you're CRAZY, Niven. Everyone says that, too -- including probably even the Shapiros and the Pollocks.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

You say they instituted a static acting directive that would lead to unnaturally still actors and there is no proof of that anywhere. I even saw a book on Google Books called The Dynasty Years Hollywood Television and critical media studies with an interviews from a director and actors and nothing! You keep calling me names rather than provide any proof that the pollocks or shapiros or spelling ever instituted that everyone on dynasty have a lack of movement when they act. No proof at all!

reply

But you lie, Niven. And you don't even read the responses. And when I've quoted actors for the "proof" your analytic mind demands, you then say they are being quoted "out of context" or that the actor is so "irrelevant" that it doesn't matter.

This is why you're infamous on those other soapy websites: you're crazeee!

--

reply

I don't frequent other sites that often and am not known on them at all and certainly can't be infamous because I barely post? I don't know what you are talking about? I post a couple times a year on one exclusively soap website? I don't know what you are talking about?

I have to say out of context because you are putting the comments of there being a static acting directive created by the producers and there was no such thing. There is not proof of any such thing and no actor said there was a static acting directive. Leann Hunley was told by a director to not move her hands so much in a scene and you can see that when adam proposes to her her body language is very active! There was no static acting directive to leann hunley. She was moving around a lot and her with her hands. SHe was irrelevant and who was she not to take criticism of her acting? She was just a scene partner of Gordon and who was she to be above being told not to move her hands so much that she looked like an idiot?

reply

You lie, and you don't even read the posts, Niven. And for that matter, you don't seem perceptive in any way whatsoever.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

If I didn't read the posts I would know of your false and lie filled theories of dynasty production.

reply

You don't read the posts, and you just scream "lie" when anybody says something you don't like. And you attempt to discount every actor whose validated the Static acting thing.

Yer stoopid. Expire, please, Niv.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

You are lying as no actor did validate a static active directive from the producers. That is something you created. You created it! It did not exist in the Dynasty world! You created it for your criticism!

reply

Niv. You also project your own behavior onto others. Here and elsehwere.

Yes, the actors verified it. John Forsythe, and Leann Hunley referred to it, and even John James has said they reined in the actors' gestures.

You seem to be a nasty and unrelenting priss-butt psycho who only wants to hear what he wants to hear. Could this be the case?


--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;


reply

John Forsythe did not refer to it. When Forsythe talked about 30's movies he said beautiful men and women and opulent sets. He bashed the stories. Why would he be so honest about bashing the stories and not say explicitly his movement was limited. Don't give the 30's movies stuff because he was referring to beautiful men and women and sets and bashed the stories. He said he was hired because Aaron Spelling thought he was a good actor. So why would Aaron Spelling allow the shapiros and pollocks to make him unnaturally restrict his movements? Leann Hunley said her hand gestures were limited by a director. If there was a static acting directive all actors must follow why wasn't she aware of it before she started acting on the show? This was a producer directive and a director telling her not to move her hands so much is the first she hears of it? This JOhn James thing is brand new and never before referenced so now I am going to have to find the truth like I did with Hunley and Forsythe. Because I already read bios of Diahann Carroll and spelling and nothing was ever said of a directive on dynasty that said all the actors must be unnaturally still at all times.

reply

As usual, Niven, you're just making crap up.

You have no idea who said what and you don't care.

How can you stand yourself??

so now I am going to have to find the truth like I did with Hunley and Forsythe.
Jesus, but you're stupid.

Hunley didn't like the "talking trees" demands from the producers (they were eerily silent when asked about it by the press), Forysthe stated that the producers were emulating the old MGM golden age pictures where the actors were "beautifully groomed but very, very still" and JJ has talked about how he was encouraged "not to move around" on camera.

Just because you don't like those points, Niv-1 (and lie about them, and rationalize them away) doesn't make you a detective.

And then, of course, there's the show itself. Where anyone can see from Season 3 onward that this directive was in effect.

reply

You are a very ignorant liar. You can't link to one article where anyone says they weren't allowed to move. I just saw a scene from the 6th season where Jeff is in bed and violently wakes up and yells Fallon! If he was not allowed to move how could this scene have been done? MGM refers to sets and looks not an acting direction from producers. How could Amanda and Sammy jo have had that pool fight? How could Blake move toward Alexis and try to strangle her? How could there have been all that action during the Moldavia massacre? The producers were so blunt about everything! Forsythe biggest complaint about stories never mentioned acting uniformity! the show disproved what you say at every turn! Dominique singing on Stage and fainting! People getting up from chairs and sitting down all the time on the show. There is movement on the show. Natural movement and action scenes!

reply

Yes, it's quite apparent that I'm ignorant. And a liar.

What's wrong, Niv? Didn't your 5-day "investigation" reveal that I had "lied" about John James' comments about being physically reined in?

Oh, instead, you just looked at the show itself and saw a fight scene. Where people fight. And move around when they fight. So that must mean no one was reined in by a static acting directive.

Niv, you may be the most exquisite idiot on the Internet. But I'll do some more research to make sure.

--

reply

You lie so much about the context of statements the actors make! Like you lied about what forsythe meant by MGM style! You lied about Leann Hunley! One director once told her not to move her hands so much! Not at all-just not just not so much. There's evidence of her over using hand gestures! Now you say John James but I'm sure thats a lie like all the others about them being under a producer enforced static acting order that involved an Aaron spelling show! Aaron spelling hired forsythe because he was a good actor! So why would he try to radically alter forsythe's acting? what are you talking about with unnaturally limited movements? Where? When? So yes any movement goes against a huge theme of your criticism post! Sorkin got famous for his walk and talks for a reason! Usually people wouldn't move so much in scenes because lack of steadicam use! Reverse angles was normal. You are just flat out lying about the context of your "proof"!!

reply

Things you don't like, Niv, are "lies."

They're right about you: you're a dingbat.
--

reply

You lie about what the actors said to prove a acting direction you came up with.

reply

You're a diagnosable psycho.

--

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"Amen"??

Because fights supposedly disprove the static acting technique?

Of course you can't be static when having a fight. That's silly, if not stupid.

You must just be a fanboy.

--

reply

There isn't any "change" to static acting, that's just something the OP made up and has been spreading over the internet for years using multiple aliases.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]