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

Just a summary of Kimmy's version of Dynasty:

The carwreck Lindsey had with Claudia was child endangerment, but the fatal wreck she had with Matthew was not?

Blake is destroying the Blaisdel family through Claudia's testimony. He should respect that family and that marriage; however, Blaisdel is under no such obligation when it comes to the Carrington marriage.

Blake is responsible for Lindsey's death while Matthew was blameless?

Blake is the only criminal defendant obligated to correct any false testimony that works in his favor.

Blake's parenting with Fallon and Steven was a disaster even though Fallon never had to shoot anyone with Blake as a single parent and he got both of his kids to adulthood, unlike Blaisdel, who got his daughter killed in less than a year. This is just one of those cases, though, where results don't matter.

Kimmy is our anti-violence-against women crusader unless it's Grimes beating Alexis. Then, it's just an adult disagreement and acceptable because it's just a warning beating. Most importantly, even though Grimes was abusive, Alexis' affair with him in no way reflects badly on her judgement. Alexis just needed to man up and fight Grimes like a man.

The parent who gets a kid stolen under her care, endangers a child, forcing her to kill, and abandons her youngest child is a better parent than a parent who does not endanger or abandon his kids. Another case where results are irrelevant relative to an agenda.

Supposed threats from her husband are more of a threat to a woman's pregnancy than the abusive lover who is seen beating her until she passes out on the bedroom floor. Supposed threats are worse than actual punches and slaps.

Alexis losing her kids was a crime against humanity, but Claudia losing hers and never seeing Lindsey again was not as bad, or even a bad thing at all.

Ed's confession regarding sabatage on the LB well was credible even though it was beaten out of him, but Alfred's about Toscani was not even though it was not beaten out of him as one confession makes Blake look bad and one does not.

Although being an anti-violence crusader, you make a case in which a woman trying to kill a man by slow poison to get his money is the heroine of the story and the victim of the man she's trying to poison as your agenda won't let Blake be the victim of a crime, only the accused.

A person conducting a terroristic home invasion and takeover can be on the good guy and on side of the angels and trying to blow the woman up that he loves as an expression of love. Just like with his daughter in Peru, he means well. So, results don't matter. Also, since Blake is an intended victim that makes it okay too as the agenda discounts any crime in which Blake is the victim.

A banker and his children were terrorized even though we never saw this in a single scene of the show as it helps you to support an agenda.

Our socially minded, anti-violene crusader considers the intentional, willful killing of another woman's unborn child by the hubby's ex spouse to be nothing more than just mischief as the agenda allows hatred for Blake to carry over to even his unborn child.

This is just a sample of the double standards and biases you support to further your agenda.

reply

Dynasty had one of tv's most unusual marital conflicts in that in season 1, both Blake and Krystle were waiting for the other one to "get with the program". The problem is they both had a different perception of what the program was.

Blake assumed the program meant that since he and Krystle were married that they would be loyal and faithful to each other, that Krystle loved him 100% as she said in the pilot, and that Krystle wanted to see his business survive its current crisis and succeed and prosper. For Blake, the program consisted of a more conventional and traditional definition of a marriage.

Krystle assumed the program meant that Blake would be compassionate and empathetic about her love for another man, in this case, Matthew Blaisdel. She assumed that she and Blake would love each other, but that Blake would also get with the program about Blaisdel. She also assumed that in marrying Blake, she now also had the right to act as a wealth redistribution agent with his holdings and redistribute them to anyone she felt needed them, again, in this case, to Blaisdel. She assumed that she was not called upon to support Blake and to have any interest in his business success. Instead, it was her place to decide which oilfield Denver-Carrington needed and deserved and which properties they did not need and deserve and if someone else might need them more. It was her place, she thought, to use family holdings to subsidize new business start ups at her husband's expense. Again, all of this was supposed to be for Blaisdel at her husband's expense. Nothing Blake could do for Krystle or give her meant anything to her besides Blake taking care of Matthew for her. It really was a most unusual request for a wife to make of her new husband. Blake is supposed to live with Krystle in a marriage in which her ex is more important to her than he is and be totally cool with it or otherwise be thought of by his wife as being a total ass.

They both loved each other. They were just wanting the other to get with the program.

reply

Thank goodness you let me win. It's important to my ego.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

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.


As I mentioned in another post, allegedly Carroll was brought in to play a former secretary of Blake's, whom he had an affair with back when he was married to Alexis. Jackie was to be his daughter, whom he fathered 20 years earlier. This would have been a FANTASTIC MOVE if the writers stuck with this; but somehow they managed to homogenize Carroll's character and make her a half-sister with nothing to do but pout. A waste of a talented actress.

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






reply

As I mentioned in another post, allegedly Carroll was brought in to play a former secretary of Blake's, whom he had an affair with back when he was married to Alexis. Jackie was to be his daughter, whom he fathered 20 years earlier.

Do we know this?

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

I remember this was the story being floated around back in the mid 1980s, when Carroll was announced as a new regular to the cast. Of course, back then we relied on print media (celebrity magazines), not the internet, not the cable channels devoted to 'breaking news out of Hollywood', not Twitter or Facebook, and certainly not imbd! But yes, this was one of the scenarios which was bounced around (among others) - I guess leaked to the press from the show? They went with the dismal, uninteresting 'half sister'. How much more fun would have been the mistress from 20 years earlier?

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







reply

From watching the Dallas 2012 show, I realized why I disliked Dynasty's Matthew Blaisdel so much. Both Blaisdel and Cliff pursued vendettas against a man or family based on a false premise.

Cliff Barnes carried out a vendetta against the Ewings based on the false premise that Jock Ewing had cheated his father. Even after this was proven to be false, Cliff still justified the previous vendetta because he thought J.R. was a jerk. Then, in the new show, Cliff totally rewrote history in his own mind so that the original premise of the vendetta was true.

Likewise, Blaisdel pursued a vendetta against Blake in 1987 based on the false premise that Blake had stolen Krystle from him, that Blake stole other mens' women and their oil when this was not true as Matthew was married to Claudia. It is not possible for a single guy to be marrying a single woman and to be stealing her from a married man. Blaisdel also got LB #1 thanks to Krystle and abandoned it. So, Blake did not steal it from him.

Like Cliff, Blaisdel took a little break from his vendetta, while sort of justifying it in his mind. But just like Cliff in 2012, Matthew pursued his vendetta with a passion in 1987. Matthew even revealed his thoughts to Blake in 87 that the marriage was invalid because Blake went shopping and bought her, which reminded me of Cliff telling Ellie that Jock didn't cheat Digger, but that her son, J.R. provided justification for the feud.

Said vendettas got Matthew killed and landed Cliff in a Mexican prison.

See, I hated Cliff too Prometheus and he was a rich white guy too. It was always about the relationship of Blake and Krystle being married and the fact that both Blaisdel's and Barnes' logic or motivations for their actions were false.

Do you see the parallels between Blaisdel and Barnes?

reply

The parallel is that you demonize the poor folks.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

You're as dumb as the OP. Cliff was right in his vendetta, the Ewings screwed over his father and him many times after. I don't accept the lame retcons that portray Jock as a saint.

reply

The writers were able to recover from a mistake in season #1 in which they asked the viewers to believe that Krystle's sexual history before she married Blake, specifically, an affair with a married man,Blaisdel, created a moral obligation on Blake's part that did not exist before he married Krystle to conduct Denver-Carrington business in a way that was best for Matthew.

Viewers are asked to believe that this moral obligation did not exist before Blake married Krystle, that he could have had the oilfield or her, but not both, and once he married Krystle, she expected Blaisdel became Blake's favorite charity, something between BoysTown and the Red Cross, as Blake put it.
The key word here was expected as Krystle just assumed that Blake would alter his usual, predatory business practices just this once, out of respect for and to validate this former relationship.

The basic premise that a person's previous sexual history creates financial obligations from the person's current spouse to the person's former lover(s) is flawed.

reply

Foolishness.

--

reply

I consider it foolish and wrong for a woman to choose the business success and financial well being of an ex lover to the financial well being and business success of her husband, and a newlywed husband at that. They were barely back from their honeymoon and all Krystle cared about was what was best for Matthew. Wasn't that Blake she was marrying while Blaisdel pouted, sulked, and threw rocks. Hadn't Blaisdel just asked his wife to return to him shortly before going out to mourn this wedding? This is the guy you defend? This scum?

reply

Krystle cared about Blake, too, but Blake wasn't being targeted by Matthew.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Foolish? Well, of course in your world, if a woman is married to a rich, white guy, a memeber of the upper 1%, she is obligated to do anything she can to bring him down as her first loyalty should be to the other 99%, not the man she's married to, and in this case, just married.

reply

But that's only your version.

--

reply

My version? You mean a version in which the financial well being and business success of Krystle's HUSBAND should have taken priority in her life over the financial well being and business success of her EX lover? Yeah, I'll stand by that argument or version of events.

Of course, in your world, we know that marriage vows are a low level priority compared to making sure the rich guy gets taken down a peg or two at any opportunity.

What if Blaisdel had became super rich like Blake instead of running off to Peru, getting his daughter killed, and returning as a home invading terrorist? Would he then have become one of your evil, dreaded, rich, white guys too?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The point you avoid is that Blake was targeting Matthew because of his past relationship with Krystle; he admitted it.




--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

You avoid the point that Blake had been pursuing a hostile takeover of the company in the pilot, BEFORE Blaisdel became a partner. You also assume that Krystle was justified in ignoring her marriage vows and siding with her ex over husband because her husband was targeting Matthew, as If it being personal and not just business,somehow obligated Krystle to get involved,which is a faulty assumption on your part. I mean Blake could destroy Walter or anybody else if it's just business; however, if it's Matthew and it's personal, then she has to get involved? Why does Blake have to validate her prior affair with a married man and condone that love? Didn't that relationship just make Krystle the tramp the writers wanted viewers to think Fallon was? If Blake was just targeting Matthew, SO WHAT?

reply

Blake admitted his motives -- even though nothing was going on between Matthew and Krystle.

So why shouldn't she loan Matthew the money to protect him?

If Blake respected his own marriage, he wouldn't have targeted his wife's ex.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Blake had been pursuing the property in the background story and pilot BEFORE Matthew became a partner? Why should his plans change just because Blaisdel buys in? Why does love for one's wife equate to loving her ex? Why shouldn't't Krystle be on team Denver-Carrington? Just because of your bigotry against rich white men?

reply

Blake admitted to Matthew in his office he was targeting him because of Krystle.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

In the pilot episode, before Matthew became Walter's partner, Matthew and Walter discussed the problem Walter (and Walter alone at this point) was having because Blake was trying to foreclose on his leases. So, Blake's efforts to takeover this company predated Matthew's involvement. Does Matthew's buy in with Walter create some kind of new obligation on Blake's part to change his business strategy?Besides, so what if Blake was targeting the business of a man with designs on his wife? All Matthew had to do was look Blake in the eye and tell him he did not still love Krystle and their feud is over. You never directly answered me about whether or not Matthew had any culpability or blame for his failed life, failed marriage, his daughter's death, or the Seige. Or, if it was all Blake's fault.

reply

So you're ignoring what's convenient. Figures.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

What about you ignoring that Blake had been pursuing a hostile takeover of the company in the pilot and BEFORE Matthew became a partner? I call that pretty convenient on your part. Why should Blake change his corporate acquisition strategy just because Matthew decided to become Walter's partner?

reply

Blake admitted to Matthew in his office he was targeting him because of Krystle.



--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

That was an offering to Matthew that if he would look Blake in the eye and tell him that he didn't still love Krystle,their conflict would be over. It was a peace offering. Besides, as you conveniently ignore, Blake had been targeting the company in the pilot and BEFORE Matthew became a partner- BEFORE.

reply

That was "an offering to Matthew"?? Jeez, your perspective is so warped.

--

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg

reply

Sounded like a fair offer to me. Whether you agree or not, you have always refused to acknowledge that Blake had been pursuing the property BEFORE Matthew became a partner. Why do you defend the character of Matthew Blaisdel? What did you possibly see in the character? I mean look at the marriage he ruined, the one he almost ruined, the business and partner he abandoned, the daughter he got killed, and The Seige.Yet, your admiration remains. Go figure some people. He refuses to make a commitment to the woman he loved or to love the one he was already committed to and this was.... admirable in your world?

reply

Sounded like a fair offer to me.

Well, of course it did.

--

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg

reply

You didn't see it as a fair offer? What would have been fair in your world? Blake gets Krystle on week nights but she and Matthew get the weekends? Blake agrees to end the marriage so those two could marry AND throws in a couple of oil wells for Lankershim Blaisdel Oil as a wedding gift? What if Blake redistributed all of his wealth to Matthew, signed over all his Denver Carrington stock to Matthew and deeded over the mansion to him? Fair? Or, still not enough in your world view?

reply

Whether you consider it a fair offer or not, it was still an offer. Blake would stay out of Matthew's business if Matthew stays out of his marriage. And we know from Krystle' s and Matthew's conversation at the "Dinner Party" that this threat was real and not just in Blake's head.

reply

Well which is it? Did Blake already have his sights set on Matthew's leases, or did he make Matthew "a fair offer" to stay out of Matthew's business if Matthew stays out of his marriage??

--

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg

reply

Both actually. He had been pursuing the leases in the pilot BEFORE Matthew became a partner. Again, BEFORE. This blows a hole in your theory that it was ALL about Matthew. And he also made a peace offering to Matthew and by extension, Walter too. But hey, since Matthew was not as rich, I know he gets your benefit of the doubt. Home invading terrorists who get their kids killed matter too... I guess.

reply

Both actually. He had been pursuing the leases in the pilot BEFORE Matthew became a partner. Again, BEFORE. This blows a hole in your theory that it was ALL about Matthew. And he also made a peace offering to Matthew and by extension, Walter too. But hey, since Matthew was not as rich, I know he gets your benefit of the doubt. Home invading terrorists who get their kids killed matter too... I guess. The bigger issue is why you defend your golden boy so fervently and always have. So much like Kimberly Shaw.

reply

So, are you saying you never saw the pilot and did not see that Blake had been pursuing a buyout or hostile takeover BEFORE Matthew became a partner? The pilot disproved your idea that it was all about Matthew.

reply

So, are you saying you never saw the pilot and did not see that Blake had been pursuing a buyout or hostile takeover BEFORE Matthew became a partner? The pilot disproved your idea that it was all about Matthew. Your argument, which would have been irrelevant even if true, was false to begin with.

reply

You can't have it both ways. And Blake admitted he was targeting Matthew because of his previous relationship with Krystle.

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


reply

Blake had been pursuing a hostile takeover of the company BEFORE Matthew became a partner which you choose to ignore. Did you never see the pilot? Besides, if we accept the premise that Blake was an aggressive corporate raider type, why should he change his usual tactics this time just because it's Matthew? Why? Out of respect for his wife's love for another man? Why did Blake owe this man special consideration? Only in your crazy, twisted world was this the case. Also, the conversation you reference was a peace offering olive branch, which was pretty gracious on Blake's part.

reply

Abject insanity!

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


reply

Always the personal insults to make up for your lack of content. Predictable. Yawn. So, did you ever see the pilot and see that Blake had been pursuing the company BEFORE Matthew became a partner? Miss that episode, did you? You must have because you never seemed to acknowlege that Krystle married Blake and not Matthew.

reply

You call always backing the rich white guy no matter what "content"?

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


reply

You consider always backing the poor(er) guy to be yours. In your world,whatever Matthew wanted from Blake, even Blake's wife, was an entitlement.

reply

You consider always backing the poor(er) guy to be yours. In your world,whatever Matthew wanted from Blake, even Blake's wife, was an entitlement. Because, after all, Blake was rich.

reply

No I don't. That's the point.

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


reply

Sure you do.You have made Blake out as being a jerk for years for not having empathy for Matthew's love for Krystle and justified it because Blake was rich, the rich white guy, or rich white papa as if the rich should forfeit their spouses to those less fortunate. Blake may have been a jerk for other things, but not about Matthew. The Siege proved that.

reply

Matthew's head injury is not unimportant to how he turned out.

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


reply

He didn't have the head injury before he abandoned Walter and the business for which Krystle was willing to throw away her marriage. He didn't have it when he initiated the brilliant plan to relocate Lindsey to Peru. Why can't you see what true scum this character was? Why defend his actions?

reply

And he didn't kidnap anybody then, either.

Why can't you see what true scum this character of Blake was, at least in the beginning? Why defend his actions?

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


reply

Matthew held people at the mansion against their will at the mansion, which = kidnapping. He forced everyone to go to LB #1 as he called it (owned by Denver Carrington), which = kidnapping. His goons shot Dexter. But since Matthew complimented Dex's father, I guess that makes up for the shooting? And he tried to blow Krystle and Blake up. I guess you blame Blake for that since he "stole" Krystle from Matthew, huh? And Lindsey, she didn't need to live a long life. Better to die at 16 doing it her father's way, I guess. Yet, your admiration remains. If only... If only Blake had been nicer to Matthew and condoned his and Krystle's special love. If only...

reply

Matthew held people at the mansion against their will, which = kidnapping. He forced everyone to go to LB #1 as he called it (owned by Denver Carrington), which = kidnapping. His goons shot Dexter. But since Matthew complimented Dex's father, I guess that makes up for the shooting? And he tried to blow Krystle and Blake up. I guess you blame Blake for that since he "stole" Krystle from Matthew, huh? And Lindsey, she didn't need to live a long life. Better to die at 16 doing it her father's way, I guess. Yet, your admiration remains. If only... If only Blake had been nicer to Matthew and condoned his and Krystle's special love. If only... If only Claudia had remained faithful despite her husband's lack of love and love for another woman. If only Krystle had agreed to love Matthew again and raise her daughter in the Peruvian jungle. If only Steven had not stabbed Matthew. If only... Such a great guy, but so many did him wrong. Nobody understood him and what he was trying to do for them.

reply

You keep saying that -- you with your selective outrage and convenient memory.

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


reply

Which of your golden boy, Blaisdel's actions did you find so admirable? When did he win you over exactly? Cheating on Claudia, getting his daughter killed,abandoning Walter, storming the mansion in 87, assaulting Blake in court,trying to resume his affair with Krystle?, firing Steven, trying to use Steven being bisexual to try and play divide and conquer with Blake and Steven during the Seige? Or, was it him trying to blow Blake and Krystle up that you really liked? When did your hero most inspire you?

reply

No one's my "golden boy" like Blake is yours.

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


reply

No answer? You can't identify which of Blaisdel's actions, i.e. cheating on his wife, asking her to come back to him while still pining away for Krystle, abandoning Walter, getting Lindsey killed, the terroristic home invasion, etc.made him your guy? Which of these noble, heroic, well thought out actions made you love him? When did he win you over exactly?

reply

Love Blaisdel? Me? Not really. But I'm more objective about him than you are Blake.

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


reply

What made you admire Blaisdel so much? Which of his failures won you over? Did the character have no culpability for his failures? Losing Krystle, failed marriage, failed business career, dead daughter, dying as a home invading terrorist? Not his fault in the least? Were his failures all Blake's fault? If only Blake had gotten with the Krystle and Mattew program back in 1981? Was that the answer? If you liked this guy, you must have loved Digger Barnes on Dallas.

reply

See? You don't read. U just react.

--

reply

Was Matthew blameless? Blameless for cheating on his wife? Blameless for losing Krystle? Blameless for his failed marriage? Blameless for trying to restart an affair with Blake's wife? Blameless for assaulting Blake in court? Blameless for losing his business? Blameless for his daughter's death? Blameless for the home invasion? Why can't you just admit it? Matthew, NOT BLAKE, caused Matthew's problems.

reply

Was Matthew blameless? Blameless for cheating on his wife? Blameless for losing Krystle? Blameless for his failed marriage? Blameless for trying to restart an affair with Blake's wife? Blameless for assaulting Blake in court? Blameless for losing his business? Blameless for his daughter's death? Blameless for the home invasion? Why can't you just admit it? Matthew, NOT BLAKE, caused Matthew's problems.

reply

Stop masturbating to John Forsythe's photo -- he's dead and it's giving him the creeps in heaven!

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


reply

Always the fallback of being crude when the errors in your logic are pointed out. Typical and predictable (yawn). But back to the point at hand: Did Blaisdel have any blame for anything or was it all Blake's fault for being rich? Stay focused. Your desire to get in the gutter comes from your lack of sense. You can't help it. But if you try... for short periods of time, maybe you can.... Nah. I was being overly optimistic and giving you too much credit.

reply

When am I crude? You worship Blake. You see him blameless. And you keep repeating it. It's all you post about on IMDb.


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


reply

Who said Matthew was blameless? But you sure say Blake is, the rapist scumbag.

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


reply

So, IF you are not saying Matthew is blameless, what is his blame? Does he have any for losing Krystle, his failed marriage, the business he lost, his daughter's death, or the home invasion? Where does his blame begin and end? Or, is trying to seduce a guy's wife, beating the guy up in court, and invading the guy's home and trying to blow a guy up okay as long as the guy is Blake?

Blake blameless? Not at all- just for everything relating to the Blake/Krystle/Matthew triangle.

To say otherwise would be to legitimize Matthew and Krystle and to say that Blake should have condoned or at least understood about the relationship.

reply

So Blake can be blamed for not being harsher?

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


reply

If Blaisdel was not blameless, what was his blame or culpability? Were any of his outcomes his own doing, or was it all Blake's fault? What did Blake owe to Krystle and Matthew's relationship?

reply

I never said Matthew was blameless. But you think Blake was -- which is sick.

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


reply

So, if he's not Blake's blameless victim, where did Matthew's blame begin and end? How much of Blaisdel's outcomes were of his own making? I consider Blake to be guilty of several things, but to have been 100 percent innocent and the victim of this season 1 triangle. I mean should he have shown empathy for his wife's love for another man? What is your golden boy's blame?

reply

What is YOUR golden boy's blame? You're so awful, you think Blake is blameless.

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


reply

Blake is only blameless for his actions relating to this season 1 triangle, not in all areas. If you don't consider Blaisdel to be blameless, what is the extent of his blame? What? You just can't bring yourself to define his blame- for anything?

reply

See? You're only satisfied if Blake is pronounced 'blameless'...

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


reply

Only blameless as it relates to Matthew. STILL unwilling to define Blaisdel's blame? Could that mean that you assign him no blame?

reply

And what do you blame Blake for? I'd like to hear it...

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


reply

Likewise, I would like to know what you consider Blaisdel's blame to be- a question you refuse to answer. I am not even sure you could bring yourself to consider the concept. After all, Blake was richer than Matthew, and given your hate for rich, white people...Is he at least responsible for Lindsey's death? What about abandoning Walter? Or, were these events both Blake's fault? Was Blake just asking for the Siege? Is it Blake's fault that Claudia, tired of a loveless marriage, had an affair.

Basically, I blame Blake for marrying a woman whom he knew still loved her ex and took empathy for that outside love interest as her due. He should have known better. But in his defense, HE fell in love. He just didn't realize that as far as Krystle was concerned, the 3 of them were all married to each other. It was love her and understand about Matthew too.

reply

Likewise, I would like to know what you consider Blaisdel's blame to be- a question you refuse to answer. I am not even sure you could bring yourself to consider the concept. After all, Blake was richer than Matthew, and given your hate for rich, white people...Is he at least responsible for Lindsey's death? What about abandoning Walter? Or, were these events both Blake's fault? Was Blake just asking for the Siege? Is it Blake's fault that Claudia, tired of a loveless marriage, had an affair.

Basically, I blame Blake for marrying a woman whom he knew still loved her ex and took empathy for that outside love interest as her due. He should have known better. But in his defense, HE fell in love. He just didn't realize that as far as Krystle was concerned, the 3 of them were all married to each other. It was love her and understand about Matthew too.

reply

Likewise, I would be interested to know where you consider Matthew's blame to begin and end. I would like to hear that.

reply

Likewise, I would be interested to know where you consider Matthew's blame to begin and end. I would like to hear that.

reply

Ha! That's what I thought: you blame Blake for being "too nice".



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


reply

And Blaisdel's blame for the way things turned out for him? For Lindsey's death, for example? Let me guess: No blame as far as you are concerned. It was all Blake's fault. Just like you blamed Jock for Digger, you blame Blake for Matthew? Blake was asking for The Siege? Pretty close to your version of Dynasty?

reply

You blame Blake for nothing except being "too nice". Which means ye shall cook in hades.

--

reply

You go first. You're far more sympathetic to Blake than I am Matthew (about whom I'm only mildly sympathetic).


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


reply

And you blame an adulterous, child endangering, home invading terrorist for nothing. What does that say about your eternal destination?

reply

So you blame Blake for nothing.

--

reply

You blame Blake for nothing?

--

reply

I just do not blame Blake for Matthew Blaisdel. Blake was not responsible for the way Blaisdel's life turned out and the monster he became. Matthew self destructed and got his kid killed without Blake's help. Unlike you,I did not blame Blake for Matthew anymore than I blamed Jock for Digger. Blake did not owe Matthew's love for Krystle any respect or consideration.

reply

You just did it again

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


reply

Did what? Refused to assign Blake the blame for Matthew's failed marriage, Matthew's dead daughter, Blaisdel's failed business career,and the Siege? I refused to agree with Matthew's contention that Blake caused it all by stealing Krystle from him? I assigned all culpability to Blaisdel and not to Blake by default because he was rich and white (as you do)? Is that what I did again? How does one condition his mind to think like you do? It's just so twisted. Is life never more complicated than your agenda driven narrative where the rich(er) and/or white(r) guy is always wrong regardless of the facts that conflict with said agenda?

reply

So you blame Blake for nothing --- except for excessive kindness and leniency.

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


reply

I can't be any more clear than saying that I blame Blake for nothing relating to Blaisdel or Blaisdel's disasterous life outcomes. He did not owe Matthew any consideration, kindness, respect, or empathy for having designs on his wife. What? You think Blake did owe him something and Matthew could have had a happy life if Blake gave it to him? What is Matthew's blame for everything? Was Blake driving the jeep when Lindsey died? You have to understand this as nobody could be as stupid as you pretend to be. No blame for Blaisdel? None at all?

reply

So now you don't blame Blake for being "too kind"?

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


reply

And Blaisdel,s blame was what exactly? Can not bring yourself to blame him, not even for the disastrous decision to move Lindsey to Peru? Asking his wife to come back to him while loving another was okay? Abandoning Walter was okay? Home invasions, shooting Dexter,kidnapping the whole family,trying to blow Blake AND Krystle up was, again, okay? He caused his own problems. Admit it. It will only hurt for a few seconds.

reply

What do you blame Blake for - anything?

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


reply

I don't blame him for stealing other men's women and their oil as Matthew accused him of. Matthew lost Krystle and LB #1 because of Matthew. I don't blame Blake for Lindsey's death. Again this was 100 percent Blaisdel. I certainly don't blame Blake for the Siege. Again, all Matthew. Blake has no blame relative to Blaisdel. You disagree of course?

reply

And what was Blaisdel's blame and culpability for his outcomes? Did he have any, or do you blame Blake?

reply

Does Blake have blame relative to Krystle?

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


reply

Still can't bring yourself to admit that your golden boy had any blame or culpability? What about Krystle lying to Blake about loving him and bringing her love for an ex into their marriage? What about her taking an acquisition away from Blake? What about Lindsey? Better that she die at 16 doing it Matthew's way? Hey, at least he kept her safe from Claudia.

reply

By your standards, Blake should have encouraged Krystle/Matthew the same way he encouraged Fallon/Jeff, or even more so.

reply

Never said that at all. But you blame Blake for nothing -- except his excessive "kindness".

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


reply

Even IF that were true, it would still be more blame than you assign to Blaisdel. Claudia, Lindsey, Walter, Blake, Krystle, and Matthew's other Siege victims just did not "get him" and see the "big picture"? But at least he protected Lindsey from Claudia, huh?

reply

You won't evaluate your golden boy's blame for anything from his failed marriage to the Siege, but want to blame Blake.Timing wise,Krystle's thing for Blaisdel pre-dates anything Blake could be blamed for. They were just home from their honeymoon when Krystle was questioning Blake about whether his plans were best for Matthew. About 3 or 4 episodes in she's telling Matthew she would have settled for a piece of something good. Then, lying about wanting to get pregnant and the necklace. But by your standards, Blake should have been more supportive and encouraging? She can lie about the necklace, but is so hurt when he deceives her and exposes her? That's a big double standard there. She can give Matthew the money, but nothing "else" that belongs to Blake? At that point, go ahead and have sex with him. What difference did it make? Can you really not see the hypocracy and double standards here?

reply

You won't evaluate Blake's blame for anything.

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


reply

I have never read of you evaluating Blaisdel's either, not for anything from losing Krystle to getting his kid killed to the Siege. Somehow, Blake is to blame just like you blame Jock for Digger.

reply

Of course, you can not assign any blame to Blaisdel because that conflicts with your life theory that always blames the rich(er) guy for the poor(er) guy's problems.

reply

Of course, you can not assign any blame to Blake because that conflicts with your life theory that always defends the rich(er) guy.

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


reply

You blaming Blake for Matthew is about the same as you blaming Jock for Digger.

reply

So, you would attribute Matthew's disastrous life outcomes to Blake's wealth and other negative qualities. No blame or poor decisions on Blaisdel's part? He made the absolute correct decisions as they related to Krystle, Claudia, Lindsey, Walter, Blake, and his Siege victims? All the people who suffered because of Matthew needed to see the big picture and realize it was Blake's fault? If only Blake had been a good sport about Krystle/Matthew back in 81? If only...

reply

Only I never sided with Digger. We don't know the truth of that. Both Jock and Digger seemed to be reprobates.

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


reply

But you do blame Blake for Matthew's outcomes?

reply

Only partly. You blame Blake for nothing.

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


reply

Partly HOW?

reply

You partly blame Blake? How?

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


reply

For Blaisdel, no blame at all. Blake didn't force Matthew to take his kid to Peru and get her killed. He was not asking for it with The Siege.

reply

I never said Blaisdel was blameless. You indeed have said Blake was blameless -- except for his being too "kind".



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


reply

So what is Blaisdel's blame? Blake made the mistake of marrying a woman he knew to still be in love with an ex, and then to your disgust,did not support and encourage that love. In the real world, Blake would have been wise to call off the wedding rather than having Krystle redistribute the wealth of his publicly held corporation to her boyfriend. He should have consented that those two deserved nothing better than each other. But he was an old guy who fell in love. So, he married and hoped.

If he wanted another kid at 55, he could have found another woman easily or hired a surrogate without Krystle's high maintenance. Her sulking about Matthew was worse than Pam's constant complaints about how the Ewings treated poor Cliff.

Matthew's blame? If not blameless, what is his blame?

reply

So you're still saying Blake's only flaw is being naive and too kind.

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


reply

So, you would maintain that Blake should have been kinder and more understanding about Matthew/Krystle, that he owed this relationship something? If so, everybody,including the Blaisdels could have lived happily ever after? Lankershim Blaisdel would have become an industry giant and Lindsey would have lived a long, happy life? Blake ruined this paradise by not supporting his wife's thing for Matthew? But there is no blame on Matthew's part? He did everything right? Peru was the best thing for Lindsey?

reply

You maintain that kindness was Blake main avocation, even in Season 1!

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


reply

If only Blake had been more supportive,encouraging, and kinder about Matthew and Krystle's special love? If only he had realized their love transcended his marriage? If only he had the same attitude about them as he did Jeff and Fallon and encouraged Krystle about it. If only... Everybody, Matthew, Claudia, Lindsey, and Krystle could have all lived happily ever after. Everything would have been great for Matthew if Blake had been nice instead of being mean old Blake? That made all the difference in Matthew's life.

reply

If only Blake had been more supportive,encouraging, and kinder about Matthew and Krystle's special love? If only he had realized their love transcended his marriage? If only he had the same attitude about them as he did Jeff and Fallon and encouraged Krystle about it. If only... Everybody, Matthew, Claudia, Lindsey, and Krystle could have all lived happily ever after. Everything would have been great for Matthew if Blake had been nice instead of being mean old Blake? That made all the difference in Matthew's life?

reply

You seem to think Blake was those things -- in between the rapes, of course.

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


reply

But if only Blake had been all of these things in season 1,think how wonderfully things could have worked for Blaisdel: He gets to keep his wife and love Krystle on the side. He gets to become an oil industry giant at Lankershim Blaisdel. No relocation to Peru; so Lindsey gets to live a long life. And Blaisdel does not die as a home invading, Charles Manson like thug- and all of this if Blake had just been nice to him and supported his and Krystle's relationship. If only... as of course none of the events that took place could have been Matthew's fault. I mean Blake saw Matthew's sad eyes and sulking and brooding. How could Blake have been so cold and had no empathy for Matthew loving his wife? How?

reply

You keep saying that.

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


reply

Like Krystle and Steven, you would not have been happy unless Blake had a Paul-on-the-road-to-Demascus moment and realized that Blaisdel was the Christ he had been persecuting.

reply

Sillines. I never said any such thing.

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


reply

No, you just hold Blake responsible for Matthew's life outcomes, which is even sillier.

reply

Huh??

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


reply

You have written that Blake is at least partially responsible for Matthew, which by extension, means you blame Blake because Matthew did not have the guts to divorce Claudia and marry Krystle if that's what he wanted. This would mean that Blake caused Steven and Claudia,s affair which ended the Blaisdel marriage. It would mean Blake was to blame for Matthew abandoning his oil company ( I mean who does that?). It would mean that Blake, not Matthew, killed Lindsey, and would mean that Blake caused the Siege. This would have to be your position if Blake was to blame for Matthew. Clear enough that YOU can follow?

reply

But you want people to say that Blake is "right" 100% of the time. It's all yu write about literally.

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


reply

Not 100 percent in every situation just 100 percent correct in the season 1 triangle between Matthew,Krystle, and himself, and blameless for all of Matthew's future disasters, like Lindsey's death and the Siege.

reply

100%?

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


reply

Absolutely. To say otherwise is to say that Blake owed Matthew something for marrying Krystle. To say otherwise is to say that Blake owed something to Krystle and Matthew's ongoing love. To say otherwise is to say that Blake should have been less aggressive in pursuing this acquisition just because it was Matthew. To say otherwise is to say that anyone else is responsible for Lindsey,s death or the Siege besides Matthew. To say otherwise is to agree with Matthew's Digger Barnes like claim that Blake stole his woman and his oil.

reply

You always say that!

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


reply

Yes, since Blake has no culpability for any of Matthew's disastrous decisions like abandoning his business, getting Lindsey killed, or the Siege, I "always say that". Repetition works when one is correct to begin with, probably an area of limited experience in your case as your anti white, rich, hetero male manifesto is deeply flawed.

reply

How would Matthew have fit into your manifesto if he had not abandoned Lankershim Blaisdel? Would his wealth have then made him an evil, white, heterosexual rich guy too? Were Cecil, Jeff, and Jason Colby evil, white heterosexual rich guys too? What about Dexter? Or, was this just for Blake? Was Steven's personal wealth okay because he was gay or evil because he was white? Was it okay that Alexis was rich because she was a woman, or bad because she was white and hetero? Dominique was a woman and black, but hetero and worst of all, Blake's sister. So, what does your crazy manifesto say about these characters?

reply

R U serious?

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


reply

Translation: My questions make you see the inconsistency and idiocy of your views. So you deflect the question. I was just trying to see if other rich characters on Dynasty were also evil, or if was just Blake. I would think this was a perfect chance for you to expand on your racist, class warfare inspired manifesto.

reply

How do I "deflect" with my "idiotic views"? All I ask is how you can pretend Blake is faultless --- except for his being "too nice" of course...

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


reply

Only blameless within the confines of this season 1 triangle. Blake owed nothing but contempt to Krystle and Matthew's "special" relationship. Nothing. Not respect, not empathy, nothing but contempt. You have never described any blame on Krystle's and Matthew's part either.LB #1 was a zero sum game. There had to be a winner and there had to be a loser. Krystle wanted her ex to be the winner and her husband the loser, and made it so. She did not loan Matthew money to start a pizza restaurant. He was in the same line of business, and as Rashid Amhed told Alexis, in that case regarding Blake, she made her choice,all the while, at that point, intending to stay married to Blake.

I just wanted to understand how your manifesto classified other rich people on these shows besides Blake and Jock? What about FC's Richard Channing? What if Matthew had become a big time oilman? What about Cecil, Jason, Jeff, and Dexter? Does the manifesto call for equal condemnation of them all, or just Blake and Jock?

reply

Only blameless within the confines of this season 1 triangle. Blake owed nothing but contempt to Krystle and Matthew's "special" relationship. Nothing. Not respect, not empathy, nothing but contempt. You have never described any blame on Krystle's and Matthew's part either.LB #1 was a zero sum game. There had to be a winner and there had to be a loser. Krystle wanted her ex to be the winner and her husband the loser, and made it so. She did not loan Matthew money to start a pizza restaurant. He was in the same line of business, and as Rashid Amhed told Alexis, in that case regarding Blake, she made her choice,all the while, at that point, intending to stay married to Blake.

I just wanted to understand how your manifesto classified other rich people on these shows besides Blake and Jock? What about FC's Richard Channing? What if Matthew had become a big time oilman? What about Cecil, Jason, Jeff, and Dexter? Does the manifesto call for equal condemnation of them all, or just Blake and Jock?

Oh, so he was nicer in Season 1, ole Blake? And only became blame-able later when he started being too polite to certain people like Krystle?

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


reply

If only Blake had been nicer to Matthew about Krystle... If only... Matthew could have been a big time oilman, Lindsey could have lived, no Siege, and Matthew and Claudia could have lived happily ever after- if only Blake had been nice to Matthew, as of course, everything in Matthew's life came down to Blake being mean to him, setting him on a dangerous path of no return that Matthew was but helpless to follow? Blake controlled Matthew's fate from 1981-1987?

reply

So, the failed and disastrous outcome of Matthew's life was a sole function of Blake's kindness towards him or the lack thereof?

reply

What?

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


reply

If only Blake had been nicer about Krystle and Matthew, just think how wonderful Matthew's life could have been, but since he wasn't, Matthew's life sucked, and it's not Matthew's fault? No blame on his part? Why? Because your manifesto requires it to be Blake's fault?

reply

So, now it's your classic deflect, "what?" routine. You blame everybody's problems on Dynasty on Blake. So,and let me try to get this down to your level, I asked if Matthew's failed life was solely because of Blake? Can you keep up with that?

reply

So, now it's your classic deflect routine. You blame everybody's problems on Dynasty on Krystle. So,and let me try to get this down to your level, I asked if Blake's failed life was solely because of Krystle? Can you keep up with that?

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


reply

I realize that your personal manifesto calls for a hatred for rich, white, heterosexual males. I get it. Still, you have to be able to see that it was Krystle who blamed Blake for not "understanding" about Matthew and for not supporting her split loyalty. It was Matthew who blamed Blake for marrying Krystle, for going shopping, buying her, and stealing another man's woman. It was Matthew who blamed Blake for stealing the company he abandoned. Accepting no blame himself, Matthew blamed and attacked Blake over Steven and Claudia's affair. Do you really think Matthew felt any blame for Lindsey's death and didn't blame Blake? What else was the Siege but a payback for everything for which Matthew blamed Blake? Who was into the blame game here? Does your manifesto block ALL rational thought?

reply

Everything is always a srawman argument with you. And not everyone can swoon over Blake's benignness like you do -- especially in S1!

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


reply

Your definition of swooning over Blake being failure to sanctify season one's relationship between Matthew and Krystle. Your definition being to fathom the thought that Matthew's problems were Matthew's fault (GASP!). Your definition being anything that conflicts with your stick it to the rich, white heterosexual male agenda- your manifesto. If only Blake had been nice about the season one super couple, oh what could have been.

reply

Your justification for all Blake's sins, and your obsession with it and compulsive posting and thread-making over it, has gotten a lot of attention for the obvious illness it reflects. Sad.

--

reply

Even more of your rich, white hating manifesto? The sad thing is that you see Blake as being responsible for Blaisdel's disasterous life and give Blaisdel a free pass just because Blake is in the demographic groups you hate so much. So, if it had not been for Blake, if he had been nice about Krystle and Matthew, Lindsey lives, no Siege, Matthew is an oil giant, Claudia and Matthew live happily ever after, Claudia never has an affair with Steven, and Krystle and Matthew get to continue their relationship for the rest of the series? Did mean old Blake really destroy this utopia?

reply

Matthew was responsible for Matthew. Why can't you just admit it? Is it because of the conflict with your manifesto?

reply

Utopia?

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


reply

Matthew was indeed responsible for Matthew. But Blake was responsible for Blake's behavior, too.

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


reply

Absolutely.I mean, by your logic, all 3 of the Blaisdels could have lived long, happy lives, Matthew could have been a big time oil giant, and Blake could have had a great marriage with a happy wife. Also, Steven would have happily been the son Blake wanted. A perfect, utopian life for all- IF only Blake had been nice to Matthew about he and Krystle's relationship as somehow, Blake owed Matthew something, and paradise was lost when he refused to pay up.

reply

No, I attribute Blake's disastrous S1 behavior to Blake.

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


reply

You have also said that Blake was partially responsible for Matthew. Which was it? Was Matthew responsible for Matthew, or did Blake create the monster Blaisdel? What does the manifesto tell you? I say Blake had zero blame related to the season one triangle. You say?

reply

More strawman argumnetation. You're arguing with yourself as usual.

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


reply

So, you don't feel that the success or failure of Blaisdel's life was a function of Blake's kindness towards him or lack thereof or you do? Was it Blaisdel's fault. If so, how much? 100%, 70%, 2%? What was his culpability?

reply

But you never blame Blake for anything.

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


reply

I have never read of you blaming Matthew or Krystle for anything. Instead, you blame Blake, you know- the rich, white, guy- for everything.

reply

You can't even keep your strawmen straight.

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


reply

You say I never blame Blake for anything. I say you never blame Matthew and Krystle for anything and blame Blake for everything because he is rich and white, which you call a straw man. I guess that is part of your manifesto now, that failing to blame rich white papa equals a straw man.

If Matthew was "just a friend", hubby takes priority over a friend. And if he was more than a friend, the relationship should not have existed at all. Either way, Krystle was to blame.

reply

The only thing you blame Blake for is being "too nice" even in Season 1!

That truly says it all.

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


reply

Even if that were true, it would still be more blame than you were willing to assign to your saintly super couple, Matthew and Krystle. I blamed Blake for marrying that woman in the first place, for not calling it off, which you called blaming Blake for being too nice.If he had called it off, he could have avoided her plot to redistribute his wealth.

reply

You think blaming Blake for being "too nice" qualifies as a balanced opinion?

Fie!

And Blake was planning to redistribute Matthew's wealth to himself.

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


reply

Only in your world is saying that Blake fell in love with and married the wrong woman, equivalent to saying he was too nice. LB #1 (and only thanks to Matthew) was founded with Harrington money that Krystle gave Matthew. So yes, she was redistributing Carrington wealth to her boyfriend, something Blake could have avoided by not marrying her. But in his defense, most CEO's don't have their wives trying to prevent them from making acquisitions and helping their corporate rivals. So, it's not a common thing that he anticipated having to defend against. He logically assumed that Colby or other competitor did it. But Krystle assured him that none of his friends would betray him. Always better to be betrayed by a wife, I guess.

reply

Only in your world is saying that Blake fell in love with and married the wrong woman, equivalent to saying he was too nice. LB #1 (and only thanks to Matthew) was founded with Carrington money that Krystle gave Matthew. So yes, she was redistributing Carrington wealth to her boyfriend, something Blake could have avoided by not marrying her. But in his defense, most CEO's don't have their wives trying to prevent them from making acquisitions and helping their corporate rivals. So, it's not a common thing that he anticipated having to defend against. He logically assumed that Colby or other competitor did it. But Krystle assured him that none of his friends would betray him. Always better to be betrayed by a wife, I guess.

reply

Strawman!

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


reply

Strawmam? Now, you are going to deny your basic premise, that Blake being the rich, white, heterosexual papa justified Matthew and Krystle's relationship and meant that Matthew deserved consideration from Blake? But this is one of the basic tenants of your racist, class-envy driven manifesto, that sticking it to the rich white guy takes priority over marital and family relations. Are you now rejecting your own manifesto?

reply

Strawman -- I'm denying your basic premise and your impulse you re-state my basic premise incorrectly.

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


reply

My basic premise was and has always been that marital/family relations take priority over political/economic agendas, in this case, Krystle's agenda to redistribute Blake's wealth as she saw fit to those she sees as more deserving and needy, a guy who just happens to be her ex. If Matthew is just a friend, Blake's needs, those of a husband, take priority over a friend. If he's more than a friend, than the relationship should not exist at all. Either way, Krystle is wrong. If she had left Blake for Matthew, then and only then would it make sense. But to start this scheme while married to Blake, and intending at that point to stay married to him, professing to love him, and assuring him that none of his friends would do this to him make her a horrible human being beyond words. My premise is that marriages are socially relevant and matter. Yours is that it's okay if wives are an instrument in the destruction of their rich, white husbands,that marriages mean nothing. I understand your premise and agenda well.

reply

More strawman.

Your basic premise is that Blake's only flaw, even in Season 1, is that he was too nice. He apparently raped Krystle and killed his son's lover in too nice a fashion.

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


reply

Your basic premise being that once Blake married Krystle, that as a good husband, he owes her emotional support over her love for ex, that he should happily accept that this other man is more important to her than he is, as after all, he's a rich white guy. So, he should be willing to make some kind of sacrifice to the poor guy, the oilfield or his wife, but owed Matthew something.

reply

Your basic premise being that once Blake married Krystle, that as a good husband, he owes her emotional support over her love for ex, that he should happily accept that this other man is more important to her than he is, as after all, he's a rich white guy. So, he should be willing to make some kind of sacrifice to the poor guy, the oilfield or his wife, but he owed Matthew something.

reply

Your premise is that Blake and his behavior is sacrosanct.

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


reply

Your premise is that the season 1 relationship between Krystle and Matthew was right, good, and justified, and I mean all of it- their conversation at the mansion in the Dinner Party episode, the necklace, and making out at Matthew's drill site, that neither Blake or Claudia had even the slightest reason to take issue with this relationship and the fact that it took priority over two marriages. After all, in Blake's case, he was a rich white guy who should share "everything" with Matthew. Your premise is driven by your manifesto.

reply

Your premise is that Blake and his behavior is sacrosanct.


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


reply

Yours being that Krystle's and Matthew's relationship was sacrosanct?

reply

If Blake was such a bastard for not being more supportive of Matthew/Krystle, was Claudia also being a bitch for confronting Krystle about it? Were both respective spouses just unreasonable and out of line? Shouldn't they both have realized that the Krystle/Matthew relationship was sacrosanct? Or, does Claudia get a pass because she's not rich like Blake? What does your manifesto have to say in this case?

reply

You keep saying that!

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


reply

You mean about Matthew and Krystle's relationship being justified and beyond reproach in your crazy, manifesto driven world? Yeah,I keep saying that. You can use repetition when correct, an area where you, no doubt, have limited or no experience.

reply

But you keep rereating yourself, with one non-sequitur and strawman argument after another!

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


reply

Anything other than Krystle and Matthew's relationship being sacrosanct and your sticking it to the rich white guy manifesto being a straw man.

reply

Straw man? Back to denying that you defend and justify the Krystle/Matthew relationship, or consider it to be sacrosanct? Back to denying your manifesto premise that rich white guys have no reasonable expectation of being loved by their wives?

reply

A strawman strawman. You must be in great pain.

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


reply

Classic! Anytime the implications or cause and effect consequences of your racists, class envious, hate-the-rich-white-guy manifesto are explained to you, then you default to a straw man defense. What page is that on in your manifesto?

reply

Classic! Anytime the implications or cause and effect consequences of your idiotic, racists, class envious, hate-the-rich-white-guy manifesto are explained to you, then you default to a straw man defense. Anytime, in this case, any blame is assigned to anyone besides Blake, such as Krystle and Matthew (oh the horror of it!), you call it a straw man What page is that on in your manifesto?

reply

More strawman non-sequiturs. You're really quite ill, Withrow.

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


reply

The only thing "sacrosanct" about Dynasty in your twisted view was Krystle and Matthew's relationship and her intent to take rich white papa down a peg or two. And when the idiocy of your manifesto driven world view is pointed out, you claim it's a straw man as if that somehow insulates and protects your manifesto. Priceless as MasterCard used to say.

reply

Yet more strawman non-sequiturs.

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


reply

Priceless. For years you have assigned all of the blame for this season 1 triangle to Blake and none to Krystle and Matthew- as your anti rich white guy manifesto dictates. Then, you claim non sequiturs when the implications of your views are explained to you. I guess your manifesto does not require you to connect the dots or to think about things deeply, which makes it perfect for you. All that is missing is for you to have your own laugh track. If only Blake had realized that his rich white guy status justified Krystle/Matthew, huh?

reply

You have only one agendum, Withrow: justify the raping-beating-killing white guys who's rich.

It's the only thing you post about on IMDb. That's pretty sick, but it's your own little private world of darkness.

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


reply

As usual,and because it was convenient to your soak the rich white guy manifesto, you overlook the timing of the storyline in that Krystle was hassling Blake about what was best for Matthew, being fair with Matthew,etc, and brooding and sulking about it as soon as they got home from their honeymoon. From about the 2nd episode,this was all she wanted out of this marriage.

reply

As usual, and because it was convenient to your deify the rich white guy manifesto, you overlook the timing of the storyline in that Blake was hassling Krystle about what was best for Matthew, and brooding and sulking about it as soon as they got home from their honeymoon.

From about the 2nd episode, this was all he wanted out of this marriage.

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


reply

No, Blake was into what was best for Denver Carrington, as Krystle SHOULD have been. You know, the husband/wife, married thing, that concept that you and your kind see as old school and outdated relative to your new anti rich white guy manifesto. Why let something as dated as marriage interfere with something as hip and modern as wealth redistribution, huh?

reply

But doesn't it strike you that your fixation on ONE topic on IMDb reveals your illness? I post about many things. You merely copy and paste your own post without variance. Sad.

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


reply

But doesn't it strike you as odd how often you have responded to my posts, by how much your hatred for the rich white guy consumes you? WE BOTH have a long history on this subject. Anything that is in conflict with your manifesto seems to draw you out. Or, is it just Krystle/Matthew? Did their love story (throwing up in the back of my mouth) just break your heart? As long as I have been commenting on this subject, you have been there too, mostly with nonsensical manifesto driven gibberish, but right there nonetheless.

reply

So you admit it: I comment on many things around IMDb, and you comment on only one.

--

reply

Not at all. My history includes commentary on numerous subjects, other nighttime soaps, movies, and the political page. The larger question is why you consider mine or anyone else's posting history to be relevant to making your manifesto driven, hate the rich white guy point. If I post that 2+2=4 1,000 thousand times and you post that 2+2=5 800 times, the fact that you posted less on the subject is not an argument in your favor. It just means I was right a thousand times and you were wrong 800. But you have been right there with me on Krystle and Blaisdel for years despite your claims to the contrary as if that validates your manifesto.

reply

You know, just because Hopkins was a good actor, conveyed a lot of emotion, and had the moping, sad eyes, James Dean sulk down pat, did not make the character's position within the plot structure a correct one. He, or I should say they were wrong because the plot structure provided, with Matthew already being married and Krystle just getting married, made them both wrong.

reply

I mean just how bad would Krystle's life had been if she had stayed out of Denver Carrington business? If Blake had foreclosed in season 1 instead of later on, what does she lose? What did she gain from Lankershim Blaisdel's brief existence other than Matthew trying to blow her up in 1987?

reply

So the Little Woman should just shut up and count her furs?

--

reply

So, that's what you would call it if Denver-Carrington, a publicly held company with minority shareholders, a board, SEC reporting requirements,etc. established its own business acquisition plans and policies instead of Krystle doing it? Sure, Blake should have no trouble explaining to his board and shareholders that he would not be acquiring LB #1 out of respect for his wife's love for another man.

reply

At least that's fresh take on the argument. Except that Blake told Matthew point blank that he was being targeted because of his prior romance with Krystle.

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


reply

He actually offered to cease hostilities with Matthew if Matthew could look Blake in the eye and tell him that he didn't still love Krystle and think about her day and night. But before that, Matthew had accepted an invitation to Blake's home and used it as an opportunity to profess his love to Krystle. So even IF you had quoted that conversation correctly, two words- SO WHAT? Why does Blake owe Matthew's love for Krystle any kind of respect? Why should he validate Krystle and Matthew's relationship? You also overlook the fact that Blake had been targeting the company when it was just Walter, before Matthew became a partner. Your manifesto inspired position is wrong at so many levels, that it is only in need of a sitcom laugh track.

reply

That's an offer??

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


reply

It was more than he owed him as Blake owed the Krystle/Matthew relationship no consideration whatsoever.

reply

Yes, and a very fair offer unless you feel that Matthew was still somehow entitled to Krystle in spite of the fact that Blake had married her. Unless you agree with Matthew's later assertion that Blake stole her from him, it's fair.

reply

You always say that.

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


reply

You asked a question, one of the ones you ALWAYS ask. I answered it, essentially saying that no man owes anything to any man trying to undermine his marriage. Since your manifesto considers redistribution of the rich white guy's wealth more important than marriage, you disagree. What's next? Strawman, non-sequiter? You ALWAYS say that. Anything for the manifesto?

reply

More non-sequiturs -- which is why you always lose all your arguments. People can't have conversations that go on inside your own head.

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


reply

I figured that one was up next in your rotation in your efforts to defend Krystle/Matthew and your anti rich white guy manifesto. Yawn.

reply

The reason you keep referring, so bizarrely, to my "manifesto" is that yours is a manifesto. But you're not much on introspection, as observed.

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


reply

What word do you use besides manifesto to describe your racists, bigoted, economic class envious motivated hatred for rich, white, heterosexual males and your complete disregard for the sanctity of their marriages?

reply

You just repeat yourself, assuming your points are self-evident but repeat them anyway!

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


reply

One can and should use repetition when their original premise is correct, although I can see where that would be a totally foreign concept for you. Not self evident that Matthew, not Blake, but Matthew was responsible for his own failed life? Really?

reply

If we accept the assumption that Blake was an aggressive, predatory corporate raider type, if that is our premise, as both Cecil Colby and Ted Dinard spoke of, why would Blake be any different with Matthew? Why does Matthew deserve a free pass? It was fine with Krystle if Blake crushed Walter and Walter alone, but Matthew's involvement changes everything and makes the LB #1 the holiest of holies? If Blake had laid off at this point, it would have been just acknowledging and sanctioning his wife's love for another man.

reply

Okay, so Blake's previous behavior should make all future behavior acceptable. Brilliant.

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


reply

So, Krystle married Blake thinking that he ran Denver-Carrington as a non-profit that he used to subsidize and fund other start up companies, like the one being formed by her beloved Matthew?

reply

[deleted]

No comment on what word besides manifesto you would use to describe your twisted world vision?

reply

What are you talking about? Sometimes it's just like you're crazy.

--

reply

So, now it's your slip, dodge, and deflect routine when the idiocy and sickness of your world views, your manifesto is questioned? Why doesn't that surprise me?

reply

It's your slip, dodge, and deflect routine when the idiocy and sickness of your world views, your manifesto is questioned? Why doesn't that surprise me, Withrow68?

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


reply

You are the one who frames his arguments around labels that fuel your hate. For you it's all about the anti rich, white, hetero male manifesto. For me, it is about Blake and Krystle's marriage taking priority over Krystle/Matthew, a concept that is obviously beyond your grasp. A guy can be a rich, white, hetero male, and still be in the right and have an expectation of spousal loyalty (Gasp!). Marriages matter too.

reply

Blake has all 4 of the demographic traits that you hate: He was white, rich, heterosexual, and a male. Blaisdel, on the other hand, only belonged to 3 of your 4 dreaded demographic groups. So, you take his side in any dispute with Blake. However, Matthew was aspiring to be rich and join the 4th of these demographic groups. So, was he a 3.5 out of 4 for trying to get rich? How does this work in your crazy world. Is it okay for a white, hetero male to try and get rich or should he be content to be poor? If Matthew had become super rich, would that make him as bad as Blake? Was Cecil worse than Blake for being richer? Could Blake's wealth have been purified if it all went to Steven? What are the rules of your label driven manifesto?

reply

Blake has all 4 of the demographic traits that you hate: He was white, rich, heterosexual, and a male. Blaisdel, on the other hand, only belonged to 3 of your 4 dreaded demographic groups. So, you take his side in any dispute with Blake. However, Matthew was aspiring to be rich and join the 4th of these demographic groups. So, was he a 3.5 out of 4 for trying to get rich? How does this work in your crazy world? Is it okay for a white, hetero male to try and get rich or should he be content to be poor? If Matthew had become super rich, would that make him as bad as Blake? Was Cecil worse than Blake for being richer? Could Blake's wealth have been purified if it all went to Steven? What are the rules of your label driven manifesto?

reply

Why would I "hate" rich white males? But your adoration of them 24/7 is what's hateable.

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


reply

Why would you? Good question. Yet,your entire position on this subject is based on Blake being one.

reply

No, your entire defense of Blake is based on his being one.

And that's the point you always sidestep. Like a coward.

--

reply

I have always based my defense of Blake on the fact that Krystle married him, NOT Matthew, a relationship based defense. It is your argument that is based on the labels, the rich, white, hetero, labels that inspire your hate- like the narrow minded, bigoted, class envious, hetero-phobic hater that you are.

reply

No, you do not. You base your defense of Blake (as you do Jock and JR) on the fact they're rich, white, ostensibly hetero males.

I merely point out your issues. And you're so weak and disturbed you can't admit it.

--

reply

My defense of Blake is based on the plot fact that Krystle married him, not Matthew. Of course in your world, Blake's labels take priority over, and in fact, invalidate his marriage. I disagree. Mine is a relationship/marriage based argument. Yours is based on the rich/white/hetero thing and marriages be damned.

Did I miss a scene where she married Matthew instead?

reply

No, you base your defense of Blake on the fact he's a rich, white, ostensibly hetero male.

I merely point out your issues.


--

reply

It's always labels, those that inspire your hate, over relationships for you, huh? Your manifesto has such a hold over you that it blocks out all rational thought, which is sad.

reply

It's always labels, Withrow, those that inspire your hate, over relationships for you, huh? Your manifesto has such a hold over you that it blocks out all rational thought, which is sad.

See how easy that was?

--


reply

Still, as always, you discount the importance of marriages and family in favor of your anti rich, white,hetero, manifesto driven biases. Only in your world would Blake's demographic labels invalidate his marriage and validate Krystle's and Matthew's relationship. The saddest part is that you lack the ability to see the obvious flaws in this worldview of yours and cling to it with such zeal.

reply

Just curious: What exactly do you think Blake owed to Krystle and Matthew's relationship and why did he owe it?

reply

Still, as always, you discount the importance of marriages and family in favor of your anti rich, white,hetero, manifesto driven biases. Only in your world would Blake's demographic labels invalidate his marriage and validate Krystle's and Matthew's relationship. The saddest part is that you lack the ability to see the obvious flaws in this worldview of yours and cling to it with such zeal.

Get real. You don't care about "marriages and family." If you did you wouldn't justify 24/7 the way Blake treated both.

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


reply

I see. So, being the rich, white male, Blake should have realized that he had no reasonable expectation of loyalty from HIS wife. He can best show his commitment to the concepts of marriage and family by accepting and encouraging HIS wife to apply these principles to her MARRIED EX at his (Blake's) expense. Blake should show his regard for marital loyalty by not expecting Krystle to have any. I mean being rich and wanting his wife to be faithful too is asking too much. It's an either/or situation in your manifesto driven world.

reply

Your comments never really ring true.

--

reply

I will say the same about your ideas that Blake owed something to the Krystle/Matthew relationship just because he was rich and white, that his demographic labels invalidated his marriage.

reply

No, that demographic is why you see Blake as sacrosanct.

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


reply

So, you do not think that Blake's demographic labels, create an obligation to the Krystle/Matthew relationship? He does not owe Matthew something for marrying Krystle? As Blake asked Krystle, Matthew should not have to now be his favorite charity? Careful how you answer. Remember your manifesto. Blake is rich and Matthew is not. Nothing is ever more complicated or important than that in your world. How could a rich white guy ever expect love and loyalty from a wife?

Refresher course: Krystle married BLAKE in the pilot, NOT Matthew.

reply

So, you do not think that Blake's demographic labels, create an obligation to the Krystle/Matthew relationship?

Huh??

--

reply

Refresher course: Krystle married Blake in the pilot, NOT Matthew. And the fact that Krystle had the nerve to bring her love for Matthew into this new marriage created no obligations on Blake's part to Matthew. Can you follow or should I simplify even further? Blake already being rich did not change this.

reply

You always leave out that Blake was the one who brought Matthew into his new marriage -- by targeting Matthew because of Matthew's previous relationship with Krystle (which Blake admitted).

In fact, Blake's jealousy and malice almost brought Krystle and Matthew back together. To her credit, she resisted it.

--


reply

Blake admitted nothing. He offered a peace offering if Blaisdel could look him in the eye and swear off Krystle. Matthew accepted an invitation to Blake's house and used the opportunity to process his love to Krystle. Matthew tried to have sex with Krystle at his drill site, which... what? met with your approval? Blake being rich and white justifies this?

Your golden boy abandoned the field Krystle bought for him, got his 16 year old daughter killed, and died as a home invading terrorist. But none of this detracts from your defense of Krystle/Matthew.

reply

Blake indeed admitted it. Your selective memory is showing, to say nothing of your delicious non-sequiturs.

--

reply

First, he admitted nothing of the kind. But even if he had, it does nothing to make your point because it does not justify Matthew making efforts to seduce Krystle. I found it entertaining that after Matthew spent the season showing no respect for and trying to destroy Blake's marriage that Matthew would throw a hissy fit when Blake destroyed his marriage. Somehow, Matthew expected Blake to validate and respect his love for Krystle as if Blake owed it and him something. What? Matthew has rights within Blake's marriage and does not need to respect its boundries? However, Blake is out of line for trashing the Blaisdel marriage?

You make these arguments as if they support your case, as if they make your point, when even if true, they would be totally irrelevant. Blake owed no consideration or recognition of validity to this love triangle. Your false point would not be a smoking gun even if true.

reply

But you lie about everything Withrow, includng what happens on screen. How can anyone possibly converse with that?

Going by your multiple back-to-back posting patterns, no one needs to!

--

reply

The point is that your supposed smoking gun of Blake targeting Matthew would be totally irrelevant even if it was true.

reply

No it isn't. And Blake admitted it.

--

reply

Irrelevant even if true, which it was not. He offered to call of his dogs IF Matthew could look him in the eye and admit that he didn't still love Krystle. We know for a fact that Matthew professed his love to Krystle at the "Dinner Party". He wasn't targeting him for a past relationship, but for a present and existing relationship. Of course, in your world, that does not even matter. Blake is rich and is therefore, the bad guy by default in any dispute with a poor guy. The Dinner Party, the necklace, the two of them making out at the LB drill site, and Krystle's good bye kiss with Matthew before leaving town showed this was not a relationship that was in the past. Blake did not cause this relationship by objecting to it. What else should he have done? Encourage it?

reply

R U still saying that? Aren't you voting for Trump, withrow?

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


reply

I am still saying that, yes. One can be repetitive when their facts are accurate. I could understand why you would have trouble relating to that concept. I mean in your version of Dynasty, Krystle was married to Matthew, not Blake.

reply

You just seem to make stuff up,

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


reply

But that's not what happened.

--

reply

Blake had been pursuing the property in the background story in the pilot BEFORE Matthew became a partner. So, it's not even possible, based on the timeline,that Blake was after the property just because of Blaisdel. You are so bigoted against rich white people that you consider Krystle to be justified in bedding down with Blake by night and conspiring against him and his business by day. You consider sticking it to the rich white guy to be so vital that it's okay,even preferable if his own wife is the one who takes him down a peg or two. In your world, it's a sick poetic justice if gifts a rich white guy buys for his wife end up being used against him. In your world,Blake's love for his wife should equate to loving her ex as he was not just marrying her,but was marrying Matthew too and just did not know it.

reply

Why should Blake loving and respecting his wife equate to him loving Blaisdel? Why should his plans to takeover this company have changed just because Matthew became a partner?

reply

Three back-to-back responses to the same post.

I love it. You're absolutely pathological -- so convinced of the benign majesty of The Rich White Guy.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

You mean the same rich white guy against whom you are so bigoted? I have pointed out the errors in your logic and your bigotry on a point by point basis that even YOU could understand. However, you remain in denial. I really can not blame you as if I had your ideology in my head, I would be in denial too. I mean if redistributing rich white guy's wealth trumps a wife's marriage vows in your world,and to say that doing otherwise would equate to her being a prostitute....? Your bigotry and hate is so strong. Very sad.

reply

Who's bigoted against rich white guys? But clearing of them of any guilt no matter the details, like one might do to excuse every sin Trump has ever committed, is another issue entirely.

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


reply

So any Fortune 500 CEO who tries to acquire or takeover another business is breaking his marriage vows? In this case was Blake marrying Krystle only? Or had he married Matthew too and just did not know it. Your argument is so weak that it's laughable.

reply

What's laughable is how you ingore that Blake said essentially verbatim that he was targeting Matthew because of his past relationship with Krystle.

Insodoing, Blake dishonored his marriage vows, not Krystle.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

What is laughable is your ignorance of the FACT that Blake had been targeting the property BEFORE Matthew became a partner It's also ridiculous that you equate honoring one's marriage vows to subsidizing a spouse's ex. Totally illogical on your part, but what else is new? Lastly your ongoing campaign of prejudice and bigotry against rich, white men is so sad. Just... sad.

reply

Blake admitted to Matthew's face he was targeting him because of Krystle.

And my "ongoing campaign of prejudice and bigotry against rich, white men is so sad. Just... sad." ???

Say what?

What's sad is that you think I'm "prejudiced" against white, rich men, and even sadder that you think that's sad.

Why don't you take up a collection for them? Oh, that's right, you do: it's called the GOP.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

So, Matthew is allowed, better still,entitled to interlope in Blake's marriage,to pursue Krystle, to come to a party at Blake's house and tell her he loves her? But God FORBID that Blake "target" him? Besides, you have always conveniently ignored that Blake had been pursuing a hostile takeover of the company BEFORE Matthew became a partner. So, it could not have been all about Matthew. Matthew had some nerve getting pissed at Blake for exposing Claudia' s affair and destroying his marriage when he had been trying to do the same to Blake for months. Of course, in your Democrat/liberal world, the guy with the lower net worth is always in the right.

reply

So, you no longer refer to Blake as rich white papa and evaluate the character in that context?

reply

You evaluate the character in that context. Sad, you republicans.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Odd you would write that since you were the one who described Blake as rich white papa. The abandoned LB oilfield, Lindsey' s death, and the home invasion in 1987 proved that Blake was always right about Matthew and his wife and son were always wrong.

reply

You even once said everyone should just "get with the program" meaning aligning with Blake's agenda.

Aren't you worried about going to hell (after a lifetime in the poor house) from that kind of gutter-level subjective thinking?

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Better to get with Blaisdel' s program? Claudia, Lindsey, and the victims of the Siege might have disagreed.I wonder what your admiration for that character and his motivations reveals about the condition of your soul?

reply

No need to get with anybody's program.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Oh? It sure seemed like Krystle expected Blake to get with her program as it related to Blaisdel.Lindsey sure had to get with Matthew's brilliant program in Peru as did Matthew's victims in the Seige. As Blake said of Toscani' s brother, face the fact, he (Blaisdel) was no innocent victim.

reply

Why do you always defend Blake raping Krystle?

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Your words,not mine.

reply

So everyone needing to "get with Blake's prorgam" means accepting his rape-y behavior.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

No,in this case it just meant that NO married person should try to sabotage their spouse's business career and business expansion plans, especially while proclaiming to love said spouse. Besides, Krystle did not leave Blake for the reason you cite. She left him because he refused to make Matthew his favorite charity, something between Boys Town and the Red Cross,as Blake put it. Why do YOU persist that an adulterous,child endangering (daughter dead because of him), home invading terrorist was an innocent? Why did Blake owe any consideration to a man with designs on his wife?

reply

So Blake was right to rape her. Brilliant.
--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Again, your words not mine. In this case, getting with the program would have meant nothing more than supporting her husband's business career. Or, if she just could not do that,at least stay out of it.Your support for an adulterous,child endangering, home invading terrorist is such a puzzle. To say that Krystle was right to betray her husband FOR HIM is twisted.Subsequent events proved Blake was always right about Matthew and his wife and son were always wrong.

reply

You also never reference Lindsey' s short life because she was forced to get with Matthew's program in Peru and how said program cost Claudia a daughter. But, hey, what can you say? A fan is a fan.

reply

I never stated an opinion about Matthew's program, nor do I necessarily have to approve of it. But your deification of Blake will rot your soul while you sit in Hell.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Nor did I endorse any rape. Somehow, though you equate my lack of support for Krystle and Matthew's "special" relationship that somehow transcended their marriages as such an endorsement. You don't "necessarily" approve of Matthew's program? Gosh. Don't be too tough on your golden boy there. If only mean old Blake had been more supportive of their feelings for each other. If only....

reply

You only endorse rape when Blake does it.

You endorse Blake on every point, icluding asserting that everyone should "get with the program" of Blake.

I don't particularly endorse of defend AllThingsMatthew, but you certainly do with Blake. So you endorse his rapey personality.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

So, to track your doublespeak logic all the way through, anyone who disapproved of Krystle and Matthew's relationship in season 1 and did not feel like Blake was obligated to get with that program endorses ALL things Blake. However, your ongoing defense of Matthew and his and Krystle' s ongoing relationship is somehow different and does not mean that you endorsed ALL things Matthew. And your defense of Krystle and Matthew has also gone on for years too, by the way. What does that say about you?

reply

Which means you condone Blake being a rapist.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Your words,not mine. Again, only YOU correlate disapproval of Krystle' s betrayal via the necklace with an endorsement of rape.

reply

So, by your logic, does that mean you endorse all things Blaisdel? Did you endorse his adultery? Did you endorse it when he asked his wife to come back to him and resume their marriage and then sulked and mourned as Blake and Krystle married? Did you endorse it when he took his wife to a party at Blake's house and used the occasion to tell another woman how much he loved her? What about when he attacked Blake in the courtroom? What about when he abandoned Walter and Lankershim Blaisdel Oil? Thumbs up all the way? I guess Lindsey' s death in Peru would have earned your endorsement as well? And The Seige... where to begin? Home invasions, kidnapping, terroristic threatening, shootings, and attempted murder via dynamite. But since you endorsed Matthew and Krystle' s great love back in 1981,by your logic you MUST have endorsed ALL things Blaisdel. Why not just admit the guy was human garbage and how misguided both Krystle and Steven were about Matthew? Why not just admit it. You will feel better.

reply

Matthew never raped Krystle like Blake did.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Matthew just tried to blow her up via dynamite.

reply

Huh?

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

So, you are now denying the conclusion of the Seige in which Matthew tried to blow Blake and Krystle sky high?

reply

Matthew had a brain injury by Season 8, just as Krystle did by around the same time.

Since everyone seemed to have a personality-altering brain injury on DYNASTY, so if you want to write in a retroactive brain injury for Blake -- say that 1964 oil rig explosion, repeated in 1987? -- to explain his homicidal rapey-ness in Season 1, then we've got something.

But since you seem to approve of Blake's evil, son's-lover-killin', rapey personality, then I guess no brain injury is required to justify his pathological early behavior.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Why do you assume that to disapprove of Krystle' s and Matthew's special little relationship and Krystle' s betrayal via the necklace equates to approving of everything Blake did? Matthew insane? Oh, yeah, that 1982 head injury that drove him crazy in 1987? I guess it takes time for a frontal lobe injury to take effect. There was not even any dialogue to confirm a brain tumor. Logic errors on your part, but what else is new?

reply

You also IGNORE the timeline that even before the Dinner Party episode, before any of Blake's misdeeds, when they had just returned from their honeymoon, Krystle was already questioning Blake about whether or not his plans to takeover Lankershim Blaisdel were really best for Matthew, not Denver-Carrington, but best for MATTHEW. What was her excuse at this point?

reply

You ignore that Blake admitted he was going after Matthew because of his relationship with Krystle.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Actually, the scene you refer to was Blake offering Matthew that he would call off his dogs if Matthew could look him in the eye and tell him that he didn't still love Krystle and think about her every day, day and night. It was a negotiation of a peace offering, not a threat of attack, Kim, I mean Prometheus.

reply

You sound more and more like Kimberly Shaw either every post.

reply

Anyone who thinks I sound like that 'Kimberly Shaw' queen can't be trusted in his judgment on anything else either.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

You equate rape with Blake's righteousness.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Actually, it is you who equates disapproval of Krystle/Matthew with 100 percent approval of Blake. It's you who seems to equate their affair as being the symbol of goodness. I mean is a newlywed really so horrible if they resent it when their spouse brings love for an ex, MARRIED lover into their marriage? What made Matthew and Krystle so entitled to this relationship when both were married? And you can't understand why the other board member finds her annoying? Really?

reply

Don't blame your pro-rape agenda on me, girlfriend.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Any opposition to the validity of the Krystle/Matthew love story equates to a pro rape agenda? That's weak even coming from you, Kim. I mean Prometheus. So, that must mean that you favor reckless child endangerment (Lindsey) and home invasions? You must believe Matthew was correct when he accused Blake of stealing Krystle from him, that a single man can marry a single woman and be stealing her from a married man? Poor Matthew. His sad story just broke your heart, huh? Of course he had no culpability for the way things turned out, huh?

reply

But the only character you like is Blake.

And don't call me "Kim" as I clearly sound nothing like that deleted psycho queen. (You, on the other hand.... have the same logic, if not opinions).


--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

I must have missed the part of Blake and Krystle' s wedding where she asked that Blake promising to love Matthew be in their wedding vows.I do,however, remember the scene on the plane in which she told Blake that she loved him (Blake) 100 percent. Was hurting Blake's business supposed to be part of that 100 percent? Blake deserved to know up front that he would have to share his wife's love.

reply

And yet Blake was the one who wasn't loving to her. Another fact you always ignore.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Sort of like you ignore the plot fact that Krystle married Blake in the pilot, not Matthew? Sort of like you ignore that Blake had been pursuing the company BEFORE Matthew became a partner, which means Matthew was not his sole motivation? And worst of all is you insisting that Blake's motivation as it relates to Matthew is even relevant, and justifies Krystle' s betrayal.

reply

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

And insodoing, Blake is betraying Krystle.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Blake had been pursuing a hostile takeover of the company in the pilot,BEFORE Matthew became a partner. Regardless,how could anything Blake did to Matthew be a betrayal of his wife and his marriage vows? As usual,your position is senseless and has holes in logic you could drive a truck through. I mean you seem to think that Blake should have began loving Matthew too as soon as he and Krystle married and that was part of being a good husband. Again,totally senseless on your part.

reply

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

And insodoing, Blake is betraying Krystle.


--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Blake had been pursuing the company before Matthew became a partner,which disproves your argument.Betraying Krystle? How could Blake's loyalty to Krystle be tied to Matthew in ANY way? Loving Krystle equals loving Matthew too? Yours is a ridiculous argument.

reply

Blake had been pursuing the company before Matthew became a partner,which disproves your argument.Betraying Krystle? How could Blake's loyalty to Krystle be tied to Matthew in ANY way? Loving Krystle equals loving Matthew too? Yours is a ridiculous argument.


It "disproves (my) argument" when Blake admitted to Matthew on-screen that he was targeting him because of his past relationship to Krystle?

And, yes, Blake's loyalty to Krystle can be tied to Matthew by Blake's choice not to leave her ex, Matthew, alone. If Blake is so obsessed with Matthew, why shouldn't Krystle be obsessed with Blake's obsession?

Her motives are altruistic. Blake's are evil.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Again, your refusal to acknowledge that Blake had been pursuing the company in the pilot and in the background story when it was just Lankershim Oil and not Lankershim Blaisdel Oil,and Matthew was still working for him is.... convenient. You making a case that when a guy marries a woman, he is marrying her exes too is.... ridiculous. In your world, redistributing rich white guy's wealth takes priority over marriage vows. He must be cut down to size even if his wife has to be the one to do it, which is.... sad. Or,maybe twisted is a better adjective. Anything goes as long as rich white papa gets screwed over. Even our most sacred of social institutions is expendable for this cause?

reply

Besides, didn't your stick it to rich white guy philosophy take a real beating at the polls last week?

reply

Everybody knows neocon teapartiers go to the midterms and everybody else doesn't. That's a shame, but that's what happens.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

A loss by forfeit is still a loss,which in this case was a good thing- sort of like Blaisdel' s loss of Krystle in season 1.

reply

A loss by forfeit is still a loss,which in this case was a good thing-

A good thing... for Satan.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

In order to make season #1 Krystle happy, Blake would have needed to hold a special board meeting in which he told his board members that Denver-Carrington would not be acquiring or pursuing the LB #1 property. When they asked why, he could have explained that HIS new wife had a prior relationship with Blaisdel and was still in love with Blaisdel, and out of respect of and to validate that love, D-C would take a pass on this property, and would not compete with Lankershim Blaisdel over any properties in the future, and lastly, that he wanted to allocate a portion of company profits to making the company a more human business and subsidizing Lankershim Blaisdel free of charge.

Then, Blake could have gone home to Krystle, and told her that he "saw the light" and now loved Matthew Blaisdel too (in a different way). He and Krystle could bond over this new, shared love. She would have been very happy to get pregnant. Also, Steven would have joined the D-C executive team and would have gotten Ted Dinard out of his life sooner and been married by the end of the 1st season.

For some strange reason, Blake's happiness with his new wife and his relationship with his son seemed tied to Matthew Blaisdel.

reply

BLake admitted to Matthew he was targeting him because of Krystle. So stop fibbing.

You've even criticized family members who disagreed with Blake for "not getting with the program."

Sick, in a RichWhiteGuy Wannabe sort of fashion.

And the fact that you can't see that, despite your decades long obsession with how Krystle "abused" Blake in Season 1, is just sicker.

Not that you aren't lovely.

--

reply

I guess you missed the scenes in the pilot which related that Blake had been pursuing the property when Walter Lankershim was the sole owner, BEFORE Matthew became a partner.

Also, in YOUR version on the pilot, Krystle must have married Matthew instead of Blake.

But to be fair, I guess I must have missed the scene where Krystle had Blake say some specials vows during their wedding ceremony in which Blake pledged love and devotion not only for her, but for Matthew Blaisdel as well and promised to support her continuing love for Blaisdel. I must have missed that. I must have gone to the kitchen for a snack during that scene as the pilot was 3 hours long. Funny thing: I didn't see that scene on YouTube either. From the vows they took, I assumed their marriage was more traditional, not an open marriage on one side with Krystle being free to love Matthew.

No doubt about it, if a man loves his wife, he needs to be supportive of her love for another man? If he loves her, he is bound to take care of her ex lovers and make them a new priority in his life?

reply

But none of that makes any sense.

--

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]