MovieChat Forums > Dynasty (1981) Discussion > The problem with Sean shooting Alexis (s...

The problem with Sean shooting Alexis (spoilers)

posted 8 years ago by jarrodmcdonald-1
13 replies | jump to latest

Spoilers if you haven't seen S8 yet...

Last night I watched 'The Rifle,' the episode where Sean shoots Alexis in the TV studio. Like 'The Fair,' this is one I remembered watching in the late 80s, because it was so vivid. But of course, I had forgotten the plot details until seeing it again.

Several things just do not work. First, there is really no foreshadowing he wants to shoot anyone-- we know he wants revenge on the Carringtons and Colbys for what happened to his father and sister, but nowhere leading up to this episode is it suggested he wants to kill them. Mainly, he wants to ruin them financially and embroil them in a scandal, which is what the Natumbe stuff is all about. If he wanted to kill Alexis, he would have done it early on and not even have married her. Then, he could have gone after Blake and it would all have been done with.

But suddenly in this particular episode he gets upset when Alexis intimates she is pulling out of the gubernatorial race. He storms off, then we see him climbing up into the rafters with a briefcase. He pulls a rifle out of the case and quickly assembles it and takes aim as the TV debate gets underway. It's not even clear if he wanted to get Blake or Alexis with the bullet. He is upset when he fails, then during the chaos that ensues, he jumps down out of the rafters and comes to his wife's aid, feigning concern.

But the silliest part of this was that nobody went up to the rafters to investigate where the shots came from. Surely, Jeff and Steven and studio security guards would have hurried up to see if they could find the gunman. And nobody seems to realize the gunman could still be in the studio, meaning they are all probably still in danger. Plus if Sean quickly got out of the rafters, he would have either left the rifle and case up there or tried to stash it somewhere, which would have been found by the police. None of that is addressed.

The only time the police are mentioned is at the hospital where Steven leaves the waiting area and says he is going to find out if the police know anything. And even that is just dropped, because we never do learn if Steven got any information from the police.

On top of that is the fact that Alexis' skull was apparently grazed by the bullet, but she is only being kept overnight for observation. Another thing that was odd is how Gordon Thomson is absent from the second half of 'The Rifle' and absent from the entire next episode, 'The Bracelet,' so they have to keep making excuses that Adam is on his way, but he never gets there. In the meantime Alexis has Blake, Steven and Fallon visiting her in her hospital room. And Amanda is not mentioned at all.

[–] bens33 8 years ago

Well, after Amanda left in Season 6, the show pretended like she never existed at all. So it wasn't unusual for her, at least, not to be mentioned.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

Yes. During an earlier S8 episode, when Alexis enters the governor's race, her campaign strategist tells her to gain the support of her children. And only Adam, Fallon and Steven are mentioned. It's sort of like after Cellini was fired, they just chose to act like Amanda never existed. And it was easier to do so after 'The Colbys' had been cancelled and Fallon returned to 'Dynasty' full-time.

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

Well, after Amanda left in Season 6, the show pretended like she never existed at all. So it wasn't unusual for her, at least, not to be mentioned.

Amanda left in the middle of season 7, not season 6. Catherine Oxenberg was fired after season 6, but replaced by Karen Cellini in season 7.

True, Amanda was not mentioned again. Not until the 2006 reunion special, "Dynasty Reunion: Catfights & Caviar" when Oxenberg (Amanda) met Pamela Sue Martin (Fallon) onscreen.

[–] bens33 8 years ago

I think the last time that Amanda's existence was acknowledged was Season Seven, Episode 18. In a conversation that Jeff and Alexis were having in which he tried to cheer her up, he reminded her that she had 4 children. After that, she was never referred to again. (Unless you count the 2006 Reunion.)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

In a way, it was a mistake to stop mentioning Amanda in the last two seasons and act like Alexis and Blake only had three children together. The season where Amanda was introduced (S5) was the highest rated one of the entire series, and fans liked that character a lot.

Plus, what would they have done if 'Dynasty' ended up running for 20 years and Emma Samms ever left..? They couldn't really have Blake without a daughter. Of course, they might have invented another long-lost offspring or age Krystina, but Amanda had already been established.

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

Michael Logan interviewed folks at Dynasty and they said the character of Amanda was not well-liked by the audience and would have simply been written off but they had already planned the return of Michael Culhane and written several scripts, so it was too late to write the character out. This is backed up by the fact that Catherine Oxenberg wanted a raise and the producers wouldn't give her the money she wanted... because she wasn't that popular. And the audience reaction to her replacement wasn't a factor in her firing because Karen Cellini was let go before her first episode even aired.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

I don't think I buy that version. They signed Wayne Northrop to a whole season. So they wouldn't just bring a replacement for Amanda on knowing they intended to let her go after the scripts they had written were filmed-- because they still needed something for him to play. It's more likely that they had an arc planned for the entire season with Amanda and Michael, but when Cellini was not gelling, they just quickly disposed of her and then had to find new ways to work the Culhane character into other plots.

And I think Oxenberg was very popular with viewers. It was the show's brass that she wasn't popular with, because of her prima donna ways and salary demands. I remember watching an evening entertainment program called P.M. Magazine (it used to air in our market after Entertainment Tonight and had longer stories, usually about TV stars). They did a whole episode on Catherine Oxenberg when Amanda's story was first taking off. They promoted it as 'royalty comes to Dynasty.' And that was a reference to Amanda's love story with Prince Michael (modeled on the Charles and Diana marriage), as well as the fact that Oxenberg actually had royal blood in her. Her being on 'Dynasty' that first year was a very big deal. And with all that kind of publicity, people tuned in to see her.

At any rate, after two years on the show, she was very identified in the role-- and any replacement was bound to come up short.

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

I agree. Oxenberg was very well-liked by fans. In fact, Saturday Night Live had her host an episode on May 10, 1986 (which was towards the end of Dynasty's sixth season and Oxenberg's second on the show).

They planned Michael to come back with Oxenberg in mind. Oxenberg has said that, unlike what was reported in the press, she asked for a small raise per episode (about $2,500), which would come out to about an extra $75K for the season, but the press reported it as Oxenberg pulling a Suzanne Somers and demanding Joan Collins type money ($100K per episode). I do tend to believe Oxenberg. Even John James said on The Colbys DVD extras that Aaron Spelling had tried to screw him out of $$.

As for Amanda, once they fired Oxenberg, they could have killed Amanda off in the fire. But they did bring back Wayne Northrop, specifically for Amanda's character. The plot was to have Michael seduce Fallon's younger sister the way he did Fallon (although in season 1, it was more of a mutual using of each other, not just Michael taking advantage of Fallon).

Soap Opera Digest did a really good article about the situation back in 1986. They basically said Hollywood chewed up Karen Cellini and spit her out. She was basically an unknown waitress from New York who was auditioning for a role on the spin-off The Colbys (I'm guessing Channing Carter?). Producers saw a resemblance between Cellini and Oxenberg and hired her almost over night, then quickly fired her before the season really even began (perhaps due to Cellini's inexperience in acting). Reportedly, after Dynasty fired her, Cellini went back to New York and never acted again.

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

Reportedly, after Dynasty fired her, Cellini went back to New York and never acted again.

Cellini still acts, reportedly in theatre. I'm guessing she doesn't feel comfortable on television show sets, which might explain why she was so bad in the role.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

Cellini still acts, reportedly in theatre.

I thought she was a model and that's why her acting was not up to par. Maybe she's improved.

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

I actually thought she was just fine as Amanda; the fact that she was less whiny and smiled a lot instead of playing the victim made me enjoy her much more. Bad acting on Dynasty? Acting wasn't why people watched the show, it was to see Alexis, Krystle, and Blake fight, argue, wear fabulous clothes, and have sex.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

Producers saw a resemblance between Cellini and Oxenberg

They saw something I never did.

I know it's been discussed that 'Amanda' was introduced in the first place to capitalize on the popularity of Princess Diana (just like 'Dynasty' capitalized on 'The Reagan era'). Oxenberg was good, but not great - often turning in a very wooden performance. But she did capture that 'iciness' of Princess Di.

Once they brought in an American actress for the role, they really killed the character.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

I know it's been discussed that 'Amanda' was introduced in the first place to capitalize on the popularity of Princess Diana (just like 'Dynasty' capitalized on 'The Reagan era'). Oxenberg was good, but not great - often turning in a very wooden performance. But she did capture that 'iciness' of Princess Di.

Once they brought in an American actress for the role, they really killed the character.

Totally agree. Cellini was too down-home to play Amanda. They should have just given Oxenberg the raise she wanted, and then made the 7th season her last one. The part never should have been recast.