Did the COLBYS hurt DYNASTY in S6?

[tommie]

How odd that people didn't want to follow smug arsehole Jeff to a new series!

 

[Michael Torrance]

Erm...they had been watching Jeff Colby for 5 years. They were supposed to follow him, that's how it works with spin-offs.

The fact that they didn't shows that obviously THE COLBYS team got the spin-off idea all wrong.
And as @Grant Jennings said...

The problem was the producers' mindset: they didn't really consider "The Colbys" (originally "Dynasty II: The Colbys") to be a spin-off as much as expanding "Dynasty" to two nights a week, similar to "Peyton Place" airing two or three nights a week. They knew producing two episodes a week of the same series would be problematic so they produced a carbon copy with similar characters, similar plots and the same opening titles - down to the font used and the trill that began both shows' themes.

Except the clone was a weaker copy of an already weakened show, not of once mighty DYNASTY.

Season six of "Dynasty" was 31 episodes long with Forsythe and Evans appearing in every one (Collins appeared in 30 because of contract negotiations at the start of the season). A typical prime time series airs 22 episodes per season. It could have been cost effective if they produced 44 episodes of twice weekly "Dynasty" with Forsythe, Evans and Collins each appearing in about 30 episodes.

DYNASTY having 31 episodes had the same root as ABC wanting to put THE COLBYS on: ABC had no other big hit show. Back in season 3 of DYNASTY, the show did not even air for May Sweeps because they had other programming scheduled for that. But by season 5 (29 episodes) DYNASTY was it. And after a #1 season, they figured let's go for 31. But while they booked the actors for all the episodes, they obviously told writers, directors etc. they didn't have to be mentally present for all of them.

 

[Ked]

Erm...they had been watching Jeff Colby for 5 years. They were supposed to follow him, that's how it works with spin-offs.

Maybe nobody wanted to follow him. They had their fill of him.

 

[Ked]

And of course I would not have had 31 episodes if half of them were full of Galen and Joel with Rita.

I've also often said if well-edited, Season 6 could have been a bang-up year … at 22 episodes.

Or they could just write it all better...

DYNASTY having 31 episodes had the same root as ABC wanting to put THE COLBYS on: ABC had no other big hit show. Back in season 3 of DYNASTY, the show did not even air for May Sweeps because they had other programming scheduled for that. But by season 5 (29 episodes) DYNASTY was it. And after a #1 season, they figured let's go for 31. But while they booked the actors for all the episodes, they obviously told writers, directors etc. they didn't have to be mentally present for all of them.

Imagine if all 31 of those episodes had been chock full of all the fun storylines they could and should have done.

 

[Willie Oleson]

How odd that people didn't want to follow smug arsehole Jeff to a new series!

Well, they did, but not enough to make it a ratings success that Dallas and Dynasty used to be.
I was simply explaining the concept of a spin-off.

Except the clone was a weaker copy of an already weakened show, not of once mighty DYNASTY.

Thank you for sharing your pain with us

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

They were on for a couple of episodes on DYNASTY, took all the screen time when they did, and then left, but the audience did not follow.

But the way DYNASTY introduced the Colby characters was crap. Of course no one followed.

But bring Bast & Huson into the first half of Season 6 of DYNASTY to introduce and flesh out the Colbys in much they way they did in S1 of THE COLBYS itself. That way DYNASTY benefits from the new family, and Alexis' search for the crown of Moldavia and Krystle's (hopefully truncated) captivity might flow a little better.

 

[Michael Torrance]

That way DYNASTY benefits from the new family, and Alexis' search for the crown of Moldavia and Krystle's (hopefully truncated) captivity might flow a little better.

I don't know how these stories could have been made better, honestly. In the same way (inexplicable if you ask me) DYNASTY was poised to be the #1 show at the end of the 1983-1984 season, it was poised to slide in the ratings after the end of the 1984-1985 season, based on the absence of Fallon, the Daniel/Nicole/Lady Ashley distractions, the introduction of Rita, and the complete dead-end that was Moldavia after the coup d' etat. Who approved this bible?

Maybe a brilliant showrunner would have made them work, for instance set up alternate Moldavia stories, such as Amanda in Moldavia and Alexis messing up her marriage there, political intrigue that actually got Colbyco into hot water, and maybe playing Rita for much more of a parody than it unintentionally was. All of these again for many, many fewer episodes as you stated. But I still would have preferred someone with a three digit IQ writing the bible for the season.

 

[Monzo]

I'm currently watching Dynasty and Colbys in US running order for the first time. IMO Dynasty hurt itself, they didn't need the Colbys for it. The Colbys are better than I had remembered, but they are also boring. There is no must-see in it, I think Dynasty still got that must-see, kind of "I must see how bad this doppelgänger writing goes." Still I get why some viewers didn't want to see what happened with Rita or the Moldavian stuff.

When it comes to ratings first two Colbys episodes aired on Wednesdays, pilot after Dynasty, next week they switched timeslots for one night only. Episode 3 aired one night later for the first on Thursday and lost 33 percent of Wednesday viewers. It looks like Colbys would have worked well with Dynasty on Wednesdays, but ABC was right not airing it back to back. I think later this season it would have hurt both shows. Viewers were used to watch Hotel after Dynasty and looking forward to see who's guest starring in it.

 

[colbyco]

(....) it was poised to slide in the ratings after the end of the 1984-1985 season, based on the absence of Fallon

- I don´t think Fallon´s absence did hurt anything ... Fallon was long gone before even PSM left ...

-the spin-off should have started earlier and be more different (even Evans said the spin-off did hurt Dynasty´s marketing ... maybe the Fallmonts, dealing in Washington with politics ... Caress becomming there the bitch position she deserved) and on a better timeslot (maybe right after or before Dynasty)

- a different team of producers should have created and procuded it ... I think this took away a lot of energy and Dynasty itself had the biggest trouble

- in my universe the Colbys would have became part of Dynasty some episodes before the wedding ... so we have some people to kill and Spelling would be happy to save a lot of money ... only Sable and Miles survive. Jeff gets Conny´s 50% of CE but dies in a hospital in Denver (because of the wedding). Because he has no wife and Alexis is the next relative she controlls it till LB is 21. Hating her cousin for a passionate with Jason Sable starts a fight ...

 

[DF414]

Sadly, Joan Collins can not be relied upon to accurately assess the effect of THE COLBYS on DYNASTY (if any). Not only had she had an axe to grind (a spin-off taking away spotlight from her golden goose that she's been the star of? no way!), but her account of what happened is selective & faulty or debatable at best.

In her book 'Passion for Life' she claims:

- Linda Evans also 'trekked over' to do a guest stint on THE COLBYS,
- ABC gave DYNASTY's Wednesday at 9 timeslot to THE COLBYS,
- THE COLBYS was a "pale imitation" and "not very good"
- the "massive confusion" caused DYNASTY's ratings to plummet
- the resulting decline caused outlandish storylines like "terrorist massacres in Crimean countries"
- most of the original cast incl. Heather Locklear had quit the show by season 9 (except Forsythe, James and Nader)
- she was reduced to 13 episodes in season 9 (unlike John Forsythe who got to do all 22) because she is a woman
- the final episode of the weekly series was "ludicrous."

Joan actually posted quite recently on Instagram how much she hated the last scene of Dynasty - stating "no wonder we were cancelled". What is interesting is that in her mind, I am sure she has read the "best" part of season 9 was Alexis v. Sable and she was in only in 13/22 episodes.

I wonder if her point on Heather Locklear was on point - I stated after recently watching season 9, she was so disconnected from the rest of the cast except her friendship with Fallon. There was seemingly no more relationship with Jeff (obviously).

I do remember that Joan also recently stated in some interview that she attributed to the lack of Stephen has another reason season 9 fell in the ratings - she stated that people wanted to see Stephen.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Joan actually posted quite recently on Instagram how much she hated the last scene of Dynasty - stating "no wonder we were cancelled". What is interesting is that in her mind, I am sure she has read the "best" part of season 9 was Alexis v. Sable and she was in only in 13/22 episodes.

I wonder if her point on Heather Locklear was on point - I stated after recently watching season 9, she was so disconnected from the rest of the cast except her friendship with Fallon. There was seemingly no more relationship with Jeff (obviously).

I do remember that Joan also recently stated in some interview that she attributed to the lack of Stephen has another reason season 9 fell in the ratings - she stated that people wanted to see Stephen.

Joan just blathers and she can't be trusted with details nor consistency. Heather loved the last season and Linda loved the exit story Paulsen gave her.

DYNASTY was already dead-in-the-water (like Roger Grimes) before Paulsen ever got there (which is why ABC moved it to the same dead-end timeslot that killed THE COLBYS on Thursday nights).

Joan originally praised (to Oprah) Paulsen and his new team who were "writing the show with a much greater sense of fun" in 1988, but her tone shifted once she started getting cut back due to budget constraints. And then she apparently went around poisoning the cast against Paulsen (which seems to have worked) and she still publicly blames Paulsen for the show's cancellation -- and not the Pollocks who weakened the show and its rating through years of mismanagement, leaving Paulsen to clean up their creative mess at the eleventh hour.

Joan's commentary is always, always ego-centered and self-serving.... and shifts constantly.

But I knew they'd do this when I first heard at the end of Season 8 that they were dropping the regular production team and bringing in "a DALLAS head honcho" to take over this dying DYNASTY: that they'd blame him for the series' imminent cancellation. And they did.

Paulsen says he doesn't think that was their plan, but he wouldn't have been privy to those conversations.

Then Larry Hagman tells the press in 1988 that it was probably "a good thing" that Paulsen, DALLAS' best constructionist, was leaving DALLAS because Paulsen "doesn't have a sense of humor." And then DALLAS promptly spirals without him.

Pearls before swine, I tell you ---- bastards and bitches and pearls before swine....!!!!!!!

 

[DF414]

Joan just blathers and she can't be trusted with details nor consistency. Heather loved the last season and Linda loved the exit story Paulsen gave her.

DYNASTY was already dead-in-the-water (like Roger Grimes) before Paulsen ever got there (which is why ABC moved it to the same dead-end timeslot that killed THE COLBYS on Thursday nights).

Joan originally praised (to Oprah) Paulsen and his new team who were "writing the show with a much greater sense of fun" in 1988, but her tone shifted once she started getting cut back due to budget constraints. And then she apparently went around poisoning the cast against Paulsen (which seems to have worked) and she still publicly blames Paulsen for the show's cancellation -- and not the Pollocks who weakened the show and its rating through years of mismanagement, leaving Paulsen to clean up their creative mess at the eleventh hour.

Joan's commentary is always, always ego-centered and self-serving.... and shifts constantly.

But I knew they'd do this when I first heard at the end of Season 8 that they were dropping the regular production team and bringing in "a DALLAS head honcho" to take over this dying DYNASTY: that they'd blame him for the series' imminent cancellation. And they did.

Paulsen says he doesn't think that was their plan, but he wouldn't have been privy to those conversations.

Then Larry Hagman tells the press in 1988 that it was probably "a good thing" that Paulsen, DALLAS' best constructionist, was leaving DALLAS because Paulsen "doesn't have a sense of humor." And then DALLAS promptly spirals without him.

Pearls before swine, I tell you ---- bastards and bitches and pearls before swine....!!!!!!!

Question - where did you see Heather loved season 9? She was disconnected from the main storyline - aside from the wedding did she have any scenes with Sable? After getting shot she was such a bore. I was surprised she would enjoy this season if she had to pick one.

I think in Joan's mind the shoe was a success with Alexis-Blake-Krystle in the center and she's right - once the show got away from that it did not do well, and in this season it was barely there. Therefore, in her mind that supports her argument. I think she is annoyed with how Dynasty ended given it was such a monster success. I may be in the minority, both both my husband and I agreed that the episodes without her were just not as much as fun. Thinking about it, I actually did miss Krystle. For some unknown reason, I liked her. I think a lot of fans thought that way too.

*Also, what episode was the above picture from? That scene was AMAZING and you have to admit Joan did a fantastic job.

 

[GillesDenver]

Question - where did you see Heather loved season 9? She was disconnected from the main storyline - aside from the wedding did she have any scenes with Sable? After getting shot she was such a bore. I was surprised she would enjoy this season if she had to pick one.

Just like Joan Collins, Heather Locklear was very positive at the start of the season but a few months/years after when she was asked what was her worst storyline in the show she did not answer kidnapping Krystle and replacing her whith her look-alike, she mentioned the storyline with the priest.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Question - where did you see Heather loved season 9? She was disconnected from the main storyline - aside from the wedding did she have any scenes with Sable? After getting shot she was such a bore. I was surprised she would enjoy this season if she had to pick one.

I think in Joan's mind the shoe was a success with Alexis-Blake-Krystle in the center and she's right - once the show got away from that it did not do well, and in this season it was barely there. Therefore, in her mind that supports her argument. I think she is annoyed with how Dynasty ended given it was such a monster success. I may be in the minority, both both my husband and I agreed that the episodes without her were just not as much as fun. Thinking about it, I actually did miss Krystle. For some unknown reason, I liked her. I think a lot of fans thought that way too.

*Also, what episode was the above picture from? That scene was AMAZING and you have to admit Joan did a fantastic job.

Heather said they "had a blast" during Season 9. Sammy Jo may be seen by some as being "disconnected" from the show that year in retrospect, but given the abject mess the writing had been for several years before Paulsen got there, those criticisms of Season 9 just seem bizarrely selective. At least Paulsen's well-structured year-long story arc (e.g., the old murder of Roger Grimes) kept everything far more focused than DYNASTY had been in half-a-dozen years, creating an overarching sense of cohesion even for "disconnected" characters like Sammy Jo.

Joan is well-aware that the "scripts really fell apart" and that the producers had this "cynical" attitude that "oh [the fans] are watching -- who cares what we throw them...?" by the middle of the series (as she told Oprah in the '90s) which was long-before Paulsen arrived like a janitor to clean up the Pollocks'/Shapiros' slop. And the Blake/Alexis/Krystle triangle had been virtually ignored for ages.

What Paulsen did was too late but it wasn't too little.

Joan just resented losing money. And if the Pollocks hadn't been allowed to ruin the show for so long a time, the budget could still have afforded Joan for every episode for Season 9.

 

[Willie Oleson]

but a few months/years after when she was asked what was her worst storyline in the show she did not answer kidnapping Krystle and replacing her whith her look-alike

But WHY would she mention that as being a bad storyline?

 

[Willie Oleson]

Sammy Jo may be seen by some as being "disconnected" from the show that year in retrospect, but given the abject mess the writing had been for several years before Paulsen got there, those criticisms of Season 9 just seem bizarrely selective

To be fair, it was kinda similar to her position in the previous season, kinda living with/kinda living without Steven. All those scenes in that drab Delta Rho living room. It's just that falling in love with a priest was such a horrible cliché while she coulda shoulda been locking horns with Virginia and Sable. She was always the best SammyJo when she hated everybody.

Delta Rho was La Mirage #2. HATED it.

 

[GillesDenver]

But WHY would she mention that as being a bad storyline?

She did not say a lot about it, she just said "it was weird". I think it was in the german documentary of 1992. She repeated it at least once again.

I agree with you that he was like watching Sammy Jo with Steven again. Season 7B was enough (or rather, already too much).
It's too bad because Sammy Jo was great in the first part of season 9. Obviously, the character was sacrified when Monica joined the show.
The storyline with the priest was the kind of material good enough for Virginia, not for Sammy Jo.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The storyline with the priest was the kind of material good enough for Virginia

Yes, but I think it was possible to mix Tanner with the Carringtons if Joanna Sills had accidentally run him over (and then not tell the police) with Sable's car which in fact she had borrowed from Dex.
And this, sadly enough, happens right after Tanner had decided to leave the church and marry Sammy Jo.

And then the car mysteriously disappears.
Sammy Jo vows revenge...

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

When you date a priest, you get some anger from those desirous of doing so. That's why people are so resentful of altar boys.

To give credit where it's due, THE COLBYS looked like a show about rich people, artwork included, which sadly DYNASTY was starting to look less like in season 6 and 7.

It's really true. Even the look of DYNASTY had become weirdly drab and stifled. Not so with THE COLBYS, perhaps because of Bast...?