If Dynasty was supposed to be a DALLAS competitor, how come there is no J.R. equivalent in the first season? Why didn't Alexis join the show until season 2? Therefore, season 1 doesn't really feel like a DALLAS copy but more like a drama show.
shareBlake was the villain in Season 1, a complicated billionaire bastard. But it seemed unlikely that Krystle would have stayed with him for too long had he remained that way.
--
BLAKE WAS A VILLAIN ? HEY PSYCKO FROM WHICH MENTAL HOSPITAL U ESCAPED ?
GUYS IGNORE THAT TROLL.....HE HATES DYNASTY AND IT'S SUCCESS....AHHHHHHH I'M DONE WITH HIM.
Well, Fallon was kinda b1tchy!
shareBlake wasn't really a villain. He was a tough businessman but not flamboyant villain like J.R. or Alexis. That's why they added Alexis in the second season. They must have realized :"Hang on! We don't have a J.R. kind of villain! We need one badly!" And after that, the show went from drama to soap.
shareI agree that Blake was the main antagonist and protagonist. Dynasty was a rip-off of Dallas. J.R. had become the most popular character on Dallas. Blake was written in the vein of J.R., ruthless, business savy, but without the womaninizing.
shareYou have to look at it from a perspective that Krystle is the main protagonist.
From that angle both Blake and Fallon are antagonists. Even Joseph is antagonistic against her.
The show was still finding itself in season one, so one has to forget what happened after when watching it when Blake was turned into a protagonist in season two after Alexis became the main antagonist.
Blake was the villain, Fallon was the star of the season!
shareI believe there were villains in Season One.
I am binge-watching the entire series from start to finish. I have literally been watching Season 1 over the last few nights. So my outlook on the show is fresh.
To a certain extent, I believe that Blake was a villain. He was homophobic and referred to Stephen by that politically incorrect F-word that no LGBTQ person wants to hear. He raped Krystle when he found out that she was taking birth control pills. During the wedding, he had his security staff sic the guard dogs on Walter Lankershim in front of the wedding guests. And of course, he made Ted Dinard a manslaughter victim.
Another villain (in my opinion) was Ed the rigger from the Lankershim / Blaisdel company. Ed sabotaged the rig and used Stephen as a scapegoat. When Matthew stood up for Stephen, Ed accused Matthew of being a gay sympathizer and possible gay man himself, inferring that that might be why Claudia wound up in the mental hospital. Matthew then punched Ed out, which Ed certainly had coming. Some of the other riggers were equally cruel to Stephen as well.
As for minor villainy, there was Lindsey Blaisdel's male schoolmate, who came over to the Blaisdel house and made a pass at her. When she rejected him, he said, "You're as crazy as your mother!" There was the snooty wedding planner who was condescending to Krystle until Stephen told him off.
Just my 38 cents. And by the way, DYNASTY was and is one of my all-time favorite shows.
Peace and joy to all.
PrometheusTree84 is right. Not only was Blake the villain, but the show itself had a COMPLETELY different angle to it. It wasn't so much like Dallas, but more of a commentary on the rich man versus poor man that was way up there at the behest of the dreaded Reagan years. The dichotomy with the Carringtons and the Blaisdells was impeccable, spot on, and very poetic. I'm sorry they felt the need to follow conformist soapy formalities. It would have been a most wonderful show if they stayed well where they started.
When you sleep with the devil, you pay.
If they had kept with the Season 1 format, it would not have lasted very long. There's a reason Season 1 was number 40 in the ratings.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Where they were at Season 1 could have gone in several directions, but they put every soap staple in the book. THAT certainly brought the show a new life, but it also through integrity away. I'm not against the rest of the show at all. Love it, but it does make you wonder what other ways they could have taken it if they followed the more basic plot. I'm sure it would have spiraled either way, because all shows did so. Just sayin'.
When you sleep with the devil, you pay.
Season 1 was indeed poetic if less commercial. I do think that what they did in Season 2, adding glamour and the wicked ex-wife Alexis, worked and worked well at first, because they were still character-oriented. My problem was how, after that, the show just started throwing out plots and catty lines and silly fights which lazily made less and less sense.
From Season 3 onward, the cynicism of the producers was staggering, so they quickly became the villains. They no longer seemed to have any interest in their own show (or the fans) other than the income it was amassing for them. And it just got worse with each passing year. (The last year, Season 9, was good because it had a new show-runner, but everyone had already stopped watching the show by then).
--
"The dichotomy with the Carringtons and the Blaisdells was impeccable, spot on, and very poetic"
No, its socialist bias was too much in your face. It should've been way more subtle and less political. As Hollywood shows, leftist rich folks are just as assy.
I agree that Blake was the villain (and protagonist) or Season 1. It was a very fine line for a character to walk and a testament to John Forsythe's skill as an actor. But if I'm not mistaken, wasn't Cecil Colby (Lloyd Bochner) in Season 1, and didn't he try to imperial Denver Carrington and indeed woo Fallon? Or was that in Season 2? If memory serves, Cecil Colby was a villain in Season 1, but he was a weak one, and that is why he was replaced by Alexis. I do remember his dying words when he knew he was not long for this world was that he was giving all of his money and power to Alexis, and he was sure she would be able to ruin Blake with it (far better than he ever could).
shareCecil could've been a good villain, but he was barely utilized, not in season 1 or 2. Alexis made for a great villain, but had she really teamed up with Cecil he would've been a much stronger villain. He had the potential.
shareAhh, but that was one of soap's greatest moments: Cecil dying immediately after saying "I do," and Alexis walking away with all of his wealth and control of Colby Co. I doubt he had the potential. That's why the writers opted for him to be a secret villain through his alter ego, Logan Rhinewood. I think they came up with that alter ego because they knew Lloyd Bochner's wooden acting style only allowed for so much range. They could only keep the smoke and mirrors going for so long, and once they signed Joan Collins to play Alexis, Cecil's (and Bochner's) days were numbered.
shareThe moment itself was good and I don't see Cecil as a character that could've lasted a long time, but it should've happened a season later. Alexis and Cecil could've been a deliciously scheming couple together, with him teaching her the ropes of the business.
That's why I have to disagree with you on Bochner's acting style, he seemed to be one of the few who realized what kind of show he was in. His campy style was incredibly entertaining (I did not like him being Rhinewood, though, it seemed like a stunt too ridiculous and evil even for Cecil. And of course, the writers didn't do anything with it in season 2).