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

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I have always thought that some of the best work on Dynasty was a Love Remembered with Blake and Alexis in Singapore. Here we see how these two people could have loved each other at one time and how as Alexis said, she loved Blake , "always had and always will". Do you think they should have done more with it, putting Blake and Alexis in the sack, using Blake's amnesia as cover, and creating a new triangle between those two and Krystle? Or did it have to be brief and non-sexual? I know Forsythe's views on the subject, but how do you think the viewer would have reacted? Could Blake and Alexis together again have re-energized the series?

reply

Alexis should've claimed she was pregnant after they got back from Singapore.

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


reply

Two problems: John Forsythe would not let Blake's character cheat on Krystle, even under the cover of amnesia. So, there was no sex. And Alexis was 50 in 1987 based on her character bio on other Dynasty sites.

reply

We're talking about Singapore, when he had amnesia. Who knows what Blake did then? And Alexis being in her ... ahem .... late-'40s and obviously hormonally active makes pregnancy possible, if not entirely likely.

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


reply

Point taken. I will amend to say, based on what we saw on camera there was no sex. I think that extending this storyline and having Blake and Alexis together again with Krystle fighting to get Blake from Alexis' "clutches" could have been rocket fuel for the series. While I liked the storyline, I feel like the writers "left money on the table".

reply

I always liked the idea of Alexis pretending to be pregnant in order to drive Krystle bananas.

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


reply

Or Alexis can claim she lost Blake's baby during a catfight with Krystle.

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


reply

I am reminded of two scenes from the 1st season. Blake invites Matthew to the mansion in hopes of buying he and Walter out (after having to assure Krystle that this was in Matthew's best interest???).

Matthew and Krystle meet and talk, taking the opportunity to first make fun of Blake for not doing his own yardwork and then with Matthew telling Krystle he loves her. Krystle then trashes her marriage, telling Blaisdel she would have settled for a small piece of something good, meaning that even at this early stage, while she still professes to love Blake, that she saw nothing good in their marriage. And then, we were supposed to feel sorry for Krystle a few minutes later when Fallon throws those words back at her?

Then, when Krystle bails Matthew out and he tries to have sex with her, she tells him that she can't give him anything else that belongs to Blake, which indicated that even as she was doing this, she knew it was wrong and equated it with marital infidelity.

Season 1 Blake was asked to understand, validate, accept, and almost approve of his wife's love for another man, and accept it as a condition of their marriage even though Krystle told Blake she loved him 100% in the pilot and was essentially leaving Blaisdel in the past. Season 1 Blake was asked to accept that LB #1 was something that he and Krystle owed Matthew for having married each other, that Blake could have had her or the oilfield, but not both, that they owed Matthew some kind of marriage tax or break up fee.

While Fallon and Jeff debated the pros and cons of capitalism and the responsibilities of the rich, Krystle imposed her views on Blake. However, it was not for the poor in general. It was just as it related to this one guy. In the paperback version of the 1st season, before he knew what she had done, Blake thanked his wife for not gloating when Matthew's well came in to which Krystle was gracious but admitted to rooting for Matthew. This dialouge was not in the show, but it could have been. A woman rooting for her husband to fail, his competitor to succeed, and being so open and honest about it, while still claiming to the love the hubby?

Then, Krystle was prepared to leave both men as saving Lankershim Blaisdel Oil meant more than being married to Blake OR being with Matthew. So, "Krystle Economics" meant more than having a relationship with either man.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Although you and I disagree on one storyline, I still consider you the only person with whom I could have a rational discussion left on the board. I must say that picking Kimmy's post apart has been more fun than it should have been.

A question: Do you think it was a mistake to kill off Cecil Colby so soon? Or, did it have to be in order for Alexis to have ColbyCo?

reply

I do think they should have showed Alexis actually learning the job, with help from somebody -- if not Cecil, then at least Adam and Jeff.

But by Season 3 they started telegraphing everything.

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


reply

True. Both Dallas and Dynasty gave this impression that just anybody could come in off the street and run an oil company. Alexis can inherit an oil giant, and with no training or experience, and probably not even a high school education, she will understand every word her engineers and geologist tell her. Same with Cliff Barnes on Dallas with his mom buying him one company after another until he finally got it right.

The industry is a little more complex than oil price go up = good and oil price go down = bad, and strike oil = good and dry hole = bad.

Jock Ewing, J.R. Ewing, Blake Carrington, Cecil Colby, and even Matthew Blaisdel had technical training in the industry. Alexis and Cliff Barnes had none. I think even Ben Carrington worked in the industry during all the years he and Blake were separated.

reply

[deleted]

One of the puzzles of the 1st season was the strange hold or power that Blaisdel had over both Krystle and Steven.

Krystle has just married Blake, telling him that she's all in and loves him 100%. Still, she can't be happy with Blake because she is so worried about Blaisdel all the time. One of the first things she asks Blake, in fact, after they return from their honeymoon is if his business acquisition plans are best for Matthew - FOR MATTHEW.

Krystle really wants nothing from Blake. There is nothing he can do for her or give her that will make her happy except for him to take a pass on LB #1 and let Matthew have it. She didn't care before Matthew became a partner in the firm, but once he did, it became some sort of holy crusade for Krystle.

Because of Blake's refusal to subsidize Lankershim Blaisdel #1, Krystle refuses to become pregnant by Blake and later separates from him.

Likewise, with Steven, he will be the "son Blake wants him to be" only if Blake is "fair" with Matthew.

With both Krystle and Steven, it's like they think Blake owes Matthew something. Owes him for what is never spelled out, but it's sort of implied that he owes him for marrying Krystle, for moving in and "snapping up" that option while Blaisdel was out of the country.

For both Krystle and Steven, you would think they expected Blake and the oil community to unite around Matthew's well coming in on time. Blake and Cecil should bury the hatchet and unite around this cause. During this period, the Cold War can be stopped, tensions in the Middle East can stop, the new CNN should be at the drill site 24/7, and the new President Ronald Reagan should be getting updates every hour. Then, when the well came in for Matthew instead of Blake, Blake should be overjoyed with jubilant celebration. Under these conditions, the sun will shine and the birds will sing, and all will be well in the world. This would cause Krystle to love Blake and want to get pregnant as soon as possible and would turn Steven into Family Ties' Alex P. Keaton. I mean for Krystle and Steven, this was MATTHEW, DAMN IT! and why couldn't Blake just get with the program.

But if Blake does not feel as they do, then it's hopelessness and despair, the sky will turn black, Krystle will be depressed and want out of her marriage, with no more sex and no more kids for Blake, and Steven will pass on the makeover he promised Blake.

Even it it means not having a relationship with either Blake or Matthew, Krystle is willing to make that sacrafice to save LB #1. The company means more to her than either man for some reason.

Years later, during the Siege, Krystle is still sympathetic over Matthew's head pain when the best thing that could happen would be for him to pass out or die from it. She and Steven both mourn Matthew's death with Steven wanting to keep his shirt because it had Matthew's blood on it. Blake was the only one thinking clearly when he took that shirt, threw it in the fire, and symbolically burned the human garbage that was and always had been Matthew Blaisdel. Just a short time before, Matthew was threatening to kidnap and kill and had tried to blow Krystle up, and would have if Steven had not stopped him. Yet, Matthew's hold over them remains intact.

Still, Matthew's power over Krystle and Steven remained. They probably went to the funeral. They were sort of like the Manson Family girls when it came to Matthew.

I am not sure what his power over them was.

reply

Not everyone agrees that Blake was a benevolent benefactor.

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


reply

True. He was not and the character of Blake was not without flaws, serious ones at that. Everyone knew this about Blake and Krystle still married him. Cecil Colby described Blake as a sleek and dangerous hunter even though he was bigger than Blake. Even Ted Dinard knew about Blake always having a strangle hold over one corporation or another. Blake was a predatory corporate raider. But he had been so and been after this property when Walter was the sole owner too. Krystle must have known this or heard things about Blake before she married him.

But somehow, for some reason, he's supposed to lay off and take a pass on this property as soon as Blaisdel becomes a partner? That changes everything?

What about Blaisdel is supposed to make Blake change his method of operation? Does he owe Blaisdel something for marrying Krystle? Does he owe this to Krystle for marrying him instead of resuming her affair with Blaisdel?

Why does it take Matthew having an oilfield for Krystle to gain closure on this relationship and to love Blake as she promised she did?

Does he owe this former relationship some kind of homage?

Why is his wife's love conditional on the financial well being of her ex? Why will Steven only do what Blake wants IF Matthew gets his oilwell? Steven could accept Blake's plans for his life or refuse and that would be fine either way, but to make it conditional on Blaisdel pissed Blake off and I can understand that. I could respect yes or no, but not that condition.

reply

You don't have to consider Blake as benevolent benefactor to acknowledge that Krystle did marry HIM in the pilot and that even dreaded rich people have a right to expect loyalty from their spouses.

If a person is married to someone in the upper 1% economic class, their loyalty should be to that person, not to the other 99% just because. Marriages trump political/economic agendas.

reply

Krystle had the right to expect Blake to be loyal to her by not targeting her ex-boyfriend.

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


reply

Blake had been targeting the property before Blaisdel became a partner in it, when it was just Walter Lankershim. Krystle did not care at that point. Why does Matthew becoming a partner change anything?

reply

Everybody who knew Blake or had heard about him knew that he was a predatory corporate raider type. If Ted Dinard knew then Krystle had to know, but she married him anyway. Then, Blake is supposed to change his method of operation just because it's Matthew, out of some reverence for his wife's love for another man?

reply

But wasn't it one of the strangest things a guy was ever asked or expected to do in a soap or other drama in order to make his wife happy?

Essentially, the message from Krystle to Blake was clear: There was nothing he (Blake) could do for her that would make her happy. There is nothing she wants from him, not even his baby.

The only way she can even try to be happy with Blake and love him is if he takes care of Matthew, if he forgoes this business acquisition and lets Matthew have it.

What if Blake did that and then found himself competing with Matthew over the next oil lease? Was Blake supposed to pass on that one too in order to make Krystle "happy" again and keep her in his bedroom?

reply

Krystle was a strange sort of gold digger. She didn't want any of Blake's "gold" for herself, not at all, but wanted it for Matthew. A very strange tv character with illogical motivations.

reply

Wrong. She was trying to protect Matthew from her jealous husband. That's a small distinction you always ignore.

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


reply

Krystle's goal was to turn Blake from what he was when she married him into a "teddy bear", and she succeeded with very bad results for Blake over the remainder of the series.

Blake was after the property BEFORE Matthew became a partner, when it was just Walter. So, he was not 100% motivated to go after LB #1 just because of Matthew. Unless Krystle was willing to go the same extremes just for Walter alone to save his company, then it's logical to assume that she was motivated by love for Blaisdel. Blake is not a jerk for not holding his wife's love for another man in reverence.

reply

Ridiculous!

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

There is no reason that Blake should have changed his USUAL methods of business operations just because "it's Matthew". Why should he worship at the alter of his wife's love for another man?

reply

Blake was after the property BEFORE Matthew became a partner, when it was just Walter. So, he was not 100% motivated to go after LB #1 just because of Matthew.

Why should he be expected to lay off and take a pass on this hostile takeover as soon as and just because Blaisdel became a partner?

reply

Selective memory. He admitted to Matthew he was going after him because of Krystle.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Her ex, MARRIED boyfriend. Let's not fall into the trap of legitimizing and validating this relationship.

reply

His wife was in an asylum for 2 years. I can't judge him too harshly.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

And neither should thee.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

You always ignore it that Blake was her husband and Matthew was not.

reply

I never ignore that Blake was her husband. Your problem is that you think no other issue is relevant (as evidenced by the fact you've disucussed nothing else for literally years).

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


reply

But you've always argued that something about this triangle should have made Blaisdel more important to Krystle than hubby, Blake, not even Blaisdel actually, but Blaisdel's company since Krystle was going to leave Matthew too. Saving LB #1 for Matthew meant more to Krystle than her marriage or a renewed relationship with Blaisdel.

Krystle didn't choose Matthew over Blake. She chose Lankershim Blaisdel Oil over Blake

Blake not having that company was SOooooo important that it was worth giving up both guys over it.

How did Krystle stand it when Blake eventually did takeover the field, undoing all of her "good works" in the process?

reply

But you've always argued that something about this triangle should have made Blaisdel more important to Krystle than hubby


No. You've alwyas argued that I said that.

I never said anything of the kind... I just said Blake brought this on himself by targeting Matthew due to Matthew's past relationship with Krystle.

Krystle's not at fault for trying to help Matthew stay out of Blake's jealous-riddled line of fire.

reply

But Blake had been after the property in the background story BEFORE Matthew became a partner, when it was just Lankershim. So, it was not all about Blaisdel for Blake. Why should Blake change his method of operation just because Walter took on a partner?

Why should Blake change his usual business operating methods just to validate his wife's love for Matthew?

reply

Your outrage is selective at best.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

The timeline shows that Blake was after this property BEFORE Matthew became a partner. So, he was not after the property just because of the past (was it really past?) relationship. It was Krystle who would not have cared if it had been just Walter, but involved herself just because of the past relationship.

Why should Blake be expected to change his usual, predatory method of operation just because "it's Matthew"? Why should he validate his wife's feelings for Blaisdel?

reply

Even Blake admitted to Matthew that he was going after him because of his past relationship with Krystle.

--
Anybody who trashes Christina Crawford is akin to a satan-worshipper...

reply

Plot fact: Blake had been after the property/company in the background story BEFORE Matthew became a partner. Krystle would not have involved herself just to save WALTER from Blake. However, this issue become morally compelling for Krystle (and Steven too) only AFTER Matthew became a partner?

Blake had nothing to worry about? He was just unreasonably jealous? Remember Matthew and Krystle's conversation at the mansion in the Dinner Party episode? This conversation sort of lended credibility to Blake's jealously, don't you think? You don't remember that Krystle and Matthew almost had sex at Matthew's drill site? So, Blake was not just being paranoid about their relationship. The relationship did exist.

Remember her telling Matthew she would have sellted for a "small piece of something good"?. All the while, of course, throughout the 1st season, she professed to love Blake.

Even when she was planning to bail Blaisdel out and Dorris asked her which one of them she was in love with, she was like "my husband, of course", as if it was an unreasonable or offensive question. Really? I think Dorris asked a fair question.

Once she bailed Blaisdel out, why NOT just sleep with him at that point? I mean, the marital infidelity had already taken place with the necklace and the money. She might as well of screwed him. When she left Blake, why not go to Blaisdel? Why throw her marriage away for Matthew's company if she did not want to be with Matthew again?

Krystle's actions were not logically thought out, you know?

reply

You're stretching (as always) the definition of "marital infidelty" to mean whatever you want it to mean.

Blake admitted to Matthew what he was doing.

I hope some day, before you die, you'll realize why Krystle alleged "betrayal" of Saint Blake haunts you day and night as it has for years.

But it will require a level of introspection you would never permit.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

PLOT FACT:

Blake had been trying to takeover the company/property in the background story and the pilot episode BEFORE Matthew became a partner. So, Blake's interest in the company predated Matthew's involvement.

But it's only AFTER Matthew becomes a partner that Krystle and Steven are both presented with a moral crisis because of Blake's actions? What about Blaisdel would present one with such a moral crisis?

Blake was no saint, but the better question is what was it about Matthew that made him such a saint that he was SOoooooo important to Krystle?

Krystle told Matthew when she gave him the money, that she couldn't give him anything else (sex) that belonged to Blake.

Why did she HAVE to give Matthew ANYTHING when he sure as hell was not going to give anything up (his marriage) for her?

reply

PSYCHIATRIC FACT:

Before you die, you'll never realize why Krystle alleged "betrayal" of Saint Blake haunts you day and night as it has for years.

It would require a level of introspection you could never permit.


--

reply

Still ignoring the plot fact that Blake was pursuing the property BEFORE Matthew became a partner, and thus, was not motivated by the sole fact that Matthew had become a partner, I see.

Oddly, Krystle and Steven didn't care until Matthew became a partner. Blake could have destroyed Walter and they wouldn't have cared. However, let Matthew buy in and everything.... changes?

Based on other plotlines such as Krystle and Matthew's "Dinner Party" conversation, Blake was 100% justified in going after Matthew anyway.

Of course, you chose to ignore the Dinner Party conversation and Krystle and Matthew making out at the drill site as these plot FACTS don't fit your agenda.

reply

Withrow, you are deeply, deeply disturbed.

There have been LOOOOOOOOOONG periods of time on IMDb when you've posted about NOTHING other than how Krystle supposedly abused Blake in Season 1.

For years.

Don't you see how your sickness is tied in to your Republican psychosis?

You only have a limited time before you go directly to hell for all eternity.

BTW: And of course I've never "ignored" that Krystle and Matthew still had feelngs for each other, but those feelings -- and even her trying to keep her husband from destroying him -- doesn't translate into the things you seem to assume they do...

Even Blake admitted to Matthew why he was targeting him. Something YOU ignore.

But the only standard you value, and one you believe to be universal and self-evident, is that the Rich White Guy is next to Godliness. Or above Godliness.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

Marital loyalty and fidelity is exclusive, Republicn territory, something the Left can't relate to?

Rich WHITE guy? There is no racial component to this storyline since all characters are the same race (white). Just like a liberal; try to make everything about race whether it fits or not.

Blaisdel was, himself, aspiring to become the dreaded, evil, rich white guy too. So, by your standards, he must have become an enemy of the State as soon his well came in.

reply

I'm trying to save your eternal soul; I'd think you'd be more appreciative.

--



reply

I am trying to teach you how to think critically and to understand cause and effect relationships. Such as:

Blake was after Walter Lankershim's company in the pilot and in the background story before Matthew became a partner. SOooooo, Blake's motivation could not have been all about Blaisdel because it predated Matthew's involvement.

The whole rich, white guy angle of yours is flawed because there was no racial component to the story as they were all the same race (white). Liberals always want to portray themselves as a race equality champion. A fine goal in and of itself, but it simply does not apply to this storyline. Yet, as the saying goes, if a man makes his living with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Even Jackson and Sharpton could not have twisted this is into an issue of race. Yet you tried. Rich white guy? Newsflash: At this point, they were all white.

Besides, didn't Blaisdel meet your definition of the dreaded, evil, rich, white guy as soon as his well came in? Didn't he become your "bad guy" at that point? I mean, he met all of the criteria; a rich white guy.

Blake was not suffering from paranoid delusions about his wife's love for Blaisdel. Those feelings and that relationship were real. Blake is under no moral obligation to champion and support this relationship.

PS,

As long as I've been posting on this subject, you've been responding. What does that say about you?

reply

I am trying to teach you how to think critically and to understand cause and effect relationships

The only thing you've been teaching readers over the last few years thru your 24/7 obsession of Krystle's Season One "abuse" of Blake is what your issues are.

It's sad and funny all at the same time. Like most pointless epics.

PS,

As long as I've been posting on this subject, you've been responding. What does that say about you?
Oh, I've only been responding here-and-there, because it's quite impossible to keep up with your ramblings. But it sounds like you refuse to belong to any party which would have you for a member.

And while I can understand why you feel that way, you're not being invited.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

While continuing to take swipes at me as Kimmy used to do, you refuse to acknowledge any plot lines that don't support your agenda.

You want to believe that Blake was after LB #1 just because of Matthew. So, you ignore that he was after the company in the pilot and background story BEFORE Matthew became a partner.

You want to believe that Blake had paranoid delusions about Krystle and Matthew's relationship, and that his fears were unfounded. So, you just ignore all plot developments that show that this relationship did exist such as the Dinner Party episode, them making out at the drill site, and of course, you justify the necklace and the money. I guess that since Blake was rich and WHITE, he had no reasonable expectation of loyalty from his wife?

You want this to be about wealth and race. So, you bring up the rich white guy angle even though everyone in the storyline was white and there was no racial component to it.

Just like Kimmy, you were never one to let plot facts stand in the way of your agenda.

reply

Oh, yes. I'm just like Kimmy... That sort of argumentation doesn't help your credibility.

Anyway, Withrow. You see the Rich White Guy as God.

End of story.

Every post you've made for 10 years proves it.


--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

Well, like him, you do ignore any plot developments that don't support your agenda, in this case, a hard Leftist agenda in which the rich white guy deserves any bad thing that happens to him mindset.

I mean, sticking it to the rich, white guy is more important than the institution of marriage? Really? This goal is so worthy that it transcends the fact that Krystle took vows with Blake, that she married HIM, not Matthew, but BLAKE?

Rich WHITE guy as God? Of the 3 of them, which one, Blake, Krystle, or Matthew was not white. Trying to introduce race into the equation when it does not even apply? Maybe you should work for Sharpton or Jackson.

I guess in your world, those evil, rich, white guys have no reasonable exepctation of loyalty from their wives?

Anyway, as soon as his well came in, by your standards, didn't Matthew's status change with him then becoming an evil, rich, white guy too?

Wasn't he an enemy of everything you believe in once he struck oil?

reply

No, your analogy between Kimmy and me just underscores the shaky (to say the least) basis for your various points.

And just because I fervently disagree with your points, doens't mean that I "ignore" them...

....but that's the key to your eternal sickness: you're so convinced that the Rich White Guy is above God, that any other value system seems unsupportable to you. So therefore the other person must be "ignoring" relevant points.

Please don't die like this, Withrow.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

Well, in assuming that Blake was after LB #1 just because of Matthew is to ignore that he was after the property in the pilot and the background story, well before Matthew became a partner. This is a plot fact that you set aside or ignore.

To break this down as being just about rich, white guy, ignores the fact that there was no racial component to this story because everyone was white. This is a plot fact that you ignore.

You also ignore that Krystle and Matthew continued to have a relationship after she and Blake married. Even Krystle's best friend asked her which one of them she was in love with. If you will recall, Krystle responded as if this question offended her and told Dorris, "My husband, of course". Of course?? After what she was doing for Blaisdel,she still claimed to love Blake? Of course, you ignore this, and the Dinner Party episode, and Krystle making out with Matthew at his drill site. It just does not fit your agenda.

Cecil told Krystle that Blake was a sleek and dangerous hunter, essentially his only peer in the Colorado oil industry. Even Ted Dinard knew about Blake being an aggressive corporate raider sort. So everyone knows how aggressive Blake is in business with everyone else, but for some reason, Krystle expects him to take a kids gloves, or better still, hands off attitude with Blaisdel? And this seems reasonable to you why?

What can you say about a woman who can only be happy in her new marriage if her new husband takes her ex under his wing and essentially does make Blaisdel his favorite charity? Again, you ignore the unreasonable nature of this expectation?

But Blaisdel, whom you defend, was aspiring to become the rich white guy that you hate so much. Another point that you ignore. Based on your logic, he is a good guy while trying to become rich, but would become a villain once successful at it.

Why can't you see how flawed your thinking is in always coming down against rich "white" guy?

But again, since everyone was white, race is not an issue- another point that you ignore.

reply

You disagree with the plot fact that Blake had been pursuing Walter Lankershim's company in the pilot and in the background story BEFORE Matthew became a partner?

Do you also disagree that then that Krystle married Blake, not Matthew, in the pilot?

Do you deny Krystle and Matthew's conversation in the Dinner Party episode?

If you do, you might as well disagree that Blake's kids' names were Fallon and Steven. Maybe you decided their names were John and Mary. Based on your ability to deny plot facts, why not?

I guess you also find it acceptable that Krystle deceived Blake over the necklace, even trying to draw his lawyer into her lies, but find it horrible that Blake exposed her deception with a deception of his own. She can lie to him, but damn him for catching her in that lie?

reply

What I "agree" with is that he told Matthew point blank why he was going after him.

I'm trying to save your soul, but you're making it uber-difficult.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

But you don't agree that Blake was after the property in the pilot well before Matthew became a partner. His sole motivation can't be Matthew when his interest in the property predates Matthew's partial ownershp.

You don't agree that Krystle married Blake in the pilot, not Matthew?

You saving souls? You? Really?

The fact that you get your thrills by seeing fictional rich people betrayed by their spouses and have built some kind of weird theology around it is pretty sad. A wife is obligated to betray her husband if he's rich and white? Not exactly sound theology for saving souls there.

reply

Your take on everything, including on me, seems skewed.

Pray for wisdom.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

Just the facts. Blake had been after Walter Lankershim's property BEFORE Matthew became a partner. So, since his interest predated Matthew's involvement, Matthew could not have been the sole reason for it.

Just the facts. Krystle married Blake in the pilot, NOT MATTHEW.

What you call skewed are simply any plot facts that don't match up with your agenda.

Amazing. If someone reports storyline facts as they happened and refuses to ignore them to support your Leftist agenda, you encourage them to pray for wisdom.

In your case, ignorance appears to = bliss.

reply

Delusional rightwingers always use the word "facts" quite freely, as a rule.

I know you're convinced your logic comes from an objective place. But what you call "facts" are simply anything skewed that matches up with your agenda.


--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

So, in your world, it was not a storyline fact that Blake had been pursuing Walter Lankershim's oil leases in the pilot and the background story even though we saw it on the tv screen?

Of course not. Because for you to admit that would be to admit Blake was not 100% motivated by Matthew Blaisdel. How could he be if his efforts predated Matthew's involvement?

Krystle did not marry Blake, NOT MATTHEW, in the pilot? That was not a fact?

Delusional Left Wingers always seem to deny facts that don't match their agendas.

reply

So, in your world, it was not a storyline fact that Blake admitted to Matthew that his real reason for targeting him was Krystle?

Of course not. Because for you to admit that would be to admit Blake was 100% motivated by Matthew Blaisdel.

Krystle marrying Blake in the pilot means she's now his whore? That was a fact?

Delusional Right Wingers always seem to deny facts that don't match their agenda.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

We were told/shown in the pilot that Blake had been after the property BEFORE Matthew became a partner. How can you ignore that?

Which man did Krystle take vows with? Blake. Who should be her highest priority, the new hubby or an ex love? I say it should be the hubby. You obviously feel that Matthew Blaisdel should have been and Blake should have been 100% cool with that. I disagree.

reply

We were told/shown in the first season that Blake continued after the property BECAUSE of Matthew's past relationship to Krystle. How can you ignore that?

Which woman did Blake take vows with? Krystle. Who should be his highest priority, the new wife or her ex love? I say it should be the wife. You obviously feel that Matthew Blaisdel should have been, and Krystle should have been 100% cool with her husband targeting him. I disagree.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

Since Blake's efforts to takeover Walter Lankershim's company predated Matthew's involvement, it's illogical to claim that Matthew's involvement was the sole motive.

Why should Blake making his wife his highest priority equate with Blake giving a damn about Matthew Blaisdel? Everyone knew that Blake was an aggressive, predatory corporate raider. Why should he change his usual method of operation this time just because it's for Matthew? Why is he obligated to respect his new wife's love for another man and accept the fact that she does not love him completely?

reply

Blake making his wife's ex-boyfriend his highest priority equates with Blake not giving a damn about his wife. Everyone knowing that Blake was an aggressive, predatory corporate raider makes his behavior acceptable? He should change his usual method of operation this time just because it's for Krystle. Blake is obligated to respect his new wife, and therefore leave her ex alone instead of proving that he does not love her completely.

--

reply

Basically your argument hinges on the idea that a newly married man needs to have respect,understanding, and support for his new wife's continuing love for her ex and needs to conduct his business activities accordingly.

What if Blaisdel had stuck around and Blake found himself competing with Lankershim Blaisdel Oil over the next oil lease? Would Blake be expected to take a pass on that opportunity too just because "it's for Matthew"? Or, could Blake have taken the kid gloves off since Blaisdel would have been your dreaded, evil, rich, white guy too? What are the rules of engagement exactly? Does this help you see how ridiculous your position sounds?

If he was supposed to alter his business activities this time, what if there had been a next time? How can Blake explain to his board that they were not going after a growth opportunity because "it's Matthew"?

Instead of expecting Krystle to be "all in" with their marriage (as she promised on the plane in the pilot), Blake needs to take it as a given that he has to share her love with Blaisdel?

But, since Blake is rich and white, I guess he has no reasonable expectation of spousal loyalty? But then, Matthew should not have been so upset about Steven and Claudia's affair since he was rich by the time he found out about it.

reply

Basically your argument should hinge on the idea that a newly married man needs to have respect, understanding, and support for his new wife. He needs to cease his continuing lust for her ex's scalp and conduct his own business activities accordingly.

Instead of expecting Blake to be "all in" with their marriage (as he promised on the plane in the pilot), Krystle needs to take it as a given that she has to share his love with Blaisdel? Because Blake seemed to have it bad for her ex.

But, since Krystle's rich and white, I guess she has no reasonable expectation of spousal loyalty? But then, Matthew should not have been so upset about Steven and Claudia's affair, but since he wasn't rich by the time he found out about it -- nor was he punitive towards Steven -- it's obviously different indeed.

--

reply

Of course. Any newlywed guy should just take it as a given that the needs of his new wife's former loves are now a high priority in his life.

Blake supporting and respecting his new wife is quite a different thing than having empathy and understanding for her continuing love for a former lover. Only YOU would see them as one and the same, and why? Because Blake is rich and white, and therefore is entitled to no spousal loyalty. In your world, Krystle has a larger obligation to non- rich/white guys and society at large that trumps her marriage vows.

Blake gay and having a thing for Blaisdel? Whatever credibility you had, if any, just went to zero

Why couldn't Krystle have been happy for Blake if he had completed his hostile takeover/foreclosure on LB #1?

If you think about it, there probably are not that many wives of Fortune 500 CEOs who are trying to wreck their husband's business acquisition plans.

Most of them support their husband's business expansion/acquisition plans and their careers even if most of the husbands are a member of your dreaded, evil, rich, white guy. Krystle was just... different?

reply

Of course. Any newlywed guy should just take it as a given that the needs of his new wife is now a high priority in his life, and that her former lover doesn't matter.

Krystle supporting and respecting her new husband is quite a different thing than having empathy and understanding for his continuing hate for a former lover. Only YOU would see them as one and the same, and why? Because Krystle is rich and white and femal, and therefore is entitled to no spousal loyalty. In your world, Blake has a larger obligation to crush non-rich/white guys and society at large that trumps his marriage vows.

Blake having a thing for Blaisdel? He may not be gay for Blasidel, but he's certainly fixated.

Whatever credibility you had never, if any, you still don't have.

Why couldn't Blake have been happy with Krystle instead of completing his hostile takeover/foreclosure on LB #1, which Blake admitted to Matthew was all about Krystle?

If you think about it, there probably are not that many Fortune 500 CEOs who are trying to wreck their wives' ex-byfriends' businesses.

Most of them support their wives and don't manufacture vicious (and criminal) business expansion/acquisition plans against their wives' ex-boyfriends, even if most of the husbands are dreaded, evil, rich, white guys. Blake was just... different?

--

reply

Your argument presumes that as soon as Blake said I do with Krystle, that he somehow should have inherited and shared her driving, consuming interest in what was best for Matthew Blaisdel instead of what was best for his own company.

It is easy to see that what is best for Denver-Carrington is what is best for Blake? Why is something only good for Krystle if it's best, not for Blake, but for Matthew Blaisdel?

When Blake told Krystle of his plans to invite Matthew and Walter to the house and hopefully buy them out, what did she say? Did she say something like "Good luck. I hope you can make a deal. I know this would be great for Denver-Carrington"?

No. She asked Blake if this was really best for Matthew- FOR MATTHEW. Which one of these guys had she just married and just returned from her honeymoon with? Which one of these guys was her husband?

Did Blake spend season #1 pining away for Alexis or some other woman from his past? No. Did Blake tell some other woman during season 1 that he would have settled for a small piece of something good (having an affair with her) instead of marrying Krystle? No.

Did Blake make fun of Krystle the way Krystle and Matthew made fun of Blake for not doing his own yard work?

Also, since Matthew abandoned the property, Blake ended up owning it anyway, and Matthew would one day invade their home with plans of kidnapping and murder, is it fair to say that Krystle's actions in 1981 were for NOTHING and that she misjudged Blaisdel's merits and essentially "bet on the wrong horse", so to speak?

reply

Your argument presumes that as soon as Blake said I do with Krystle, that he somehow should have dropped his driving, consuming interest in Matthew Blaisdel and instead focus on his own company.

Is it easy to see that what is best for Krystle is what is best for Blake? Why is something only good for Blake if it's best, not for Krystle, but for Blake and only Blake?

When Blake told Krystle of his plans to invite Matthew and Walter to the house and hopefully buy them out, what did she say? Did she say something like "Good luck. I hope you can make a deal. I know this would be great for Denver-Carrington"?

No. She asked Blake if this was really best for Matthew -- FOR MATTHEW, becasue she realized Matthew was most vulnerable. Which one of these guys had she just married and just returned from her honeymoon with? Which one of these guys was her husband and why didn't he show consideration for her?

Did Blake spend season #1 pining away for Alexis or some other woman from his past? No, nor did Krystle. Did Blake tell some other woman during season 1 that he would have settled for a small piece of something good (having an affair with her) instead of marrying Krystle? No. Because Blake knew Krystle would treat him well, while Krystle knew Blake would probably rape her any minute now.

Did Blake make fun of Krystle the way Krystle and Matthew made fun of Blake for not doing his own yard work? No, Blake just raped her.

Also, since Matthew abandoned the property, Blake ended up owning it anyway, and Matthew would one day invade their home with plans of kidnapping and murder, is it fair to say that Krystle's actions in 1981 were for NOTHING and that she misjudged Blaisdel's merits and essentially "bet on the wrong horse", so to speak?

Probably not. Because Matthew, despite being the victim of a head injury, was lucid enough to assume Krystle was still being raped by Blake six years later.

--

reply

I've decided you're teasing.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Withrow seesm to have withdrawn.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

You always ignore that fact that you're stupid.

reply