Do you accept the TNT show?

[Werewillie Oleson]

I understand that you don't like it, but if you acknowledge even one little aspect of TNT Dallas as being part of the Dallas saga then you accept it as being true.
It can't be both true and untrue. You can't magically transfer bits of the TNT version to the LORIMAR version. I know it's a tough decision but hey, c'est la vie

 

[stevew]

Original Dallas, the reunion movies, and TNT's Dallas are all their own thing. The dream season was already retconned by the writers, and while the reunion movies are crap, they clearly follow the original show's continuity. TNT's Dallas simply strayed too far from the source material for my liking, which is why I don't look at it as canon with the original series.

Other people obviously see it differently, which is fine. It's subjective.

It is of course subjective, but like the Dream season with the original and the movies with TNT, if we ever get another go at a Dallas continuation, ignoring the TNT seasons would cause further troubles. The writers shouldn’t ever just wipe out what we watch.

 

[stevew]

If you don't accept the TNT series, if you think that it's not a part of the real DALLAS saga, does that mean you believe that JR is still alive?
And I'm not talking about fanfic scenarios, but what you really believe.

And I guess it also means that you don't believe that this is John Ross Ewing:

JR died and this is John Ross Ewing. The rest? Lots could be said going further. Maybe what we say going forward happened in 2010 - JR arranged a year without estate taxes. Maybe there were other pieces of the masterpiece we didn’t know, like JR owned a controlling interest in West Star. Maybe Chris spent years in rehab having survived the explosion. Lots of interesting stories could be told but JR died and Josh Henderson is John Ross - oh and like his name shakes, is always on top.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

If you don't accept the TNT series, if you think that it's not a part of the real DALLAS saga, does that mean you believe that JR is still alive?
And I'm not talking about fanfic scenarios, but what you really believe.

And I guess it also means that you don't believe that this is John Ross Ewing:

Before TNT's Dallas existed, all any of us could do is speculate about JR's fate or who John Ross and Christopher grew up to be. TNT's Dallas likely influenced some of those opinions later on, but that doesn't mean we look at the show as canon. TNT's Dallas only has itself to blame, since it too played fast and loose with the continuity of the original series and reunions.

I understand that you don't like it, but if you acknowledge even one little aspect of TNT Dallas as being part of the Dallas saga then you accept it as being true. It can't be both true and untrue. You can't magically transfer bits of the TNT version to the LORIMAR version. I know it's a tough decision but hey, c'est la vie

LMAO, but that's precisely what TNT's Dallas did! The reunion movies weren't canon, the Ramos family was transferred into the LORIMAR version, and aspects of the original Dallas continuity were changed. Cliff's characterization is the most glaring example. They retconned him owning Ewing Oil at the end of the original, opting instead to have him get his revenge in the new series. They never explained convincingly why he was willing to sacrifice to lives of his daughter and unborn grandchildren, which was completely unlike his previous self.

If cherry picking continuity was good enough for Cidre, it should be good enough for the fans.

It is of course subjective, but like the Dream season with the original and the movies with TNT, if we ever get another go at a Dallas continuation, ignoring the TNT seasons would cause further troubles. The writers shouldn’t ever just wipe out what we watch.

I'm not a fan of retcons in general, but that's precisely what TNT's Dallas did beginning with the reunion movies. I guess we were supposed to believe JR had been in his vegetative state since the end of Conundrum, which is unlikely. And then there's the fact that TNT's Dallas also altered the original show's continuity regularly (as well as shoe-horning itself into it.)

In the unlikely event that Dallas is picked up again, I wouldn't have any interest in seeing it. If WOTE didn't kill my desire for more Dallas, the TNT show sure as hell did.

 

[Matthew Blaisdel]

I accept the TNT Version, although it's kind of like playing in an alternate Universe for me ... where Katherine died and the Oil Barons Ball doesn't exist and such.
But it's definitely it's own thing.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

LMAO, but that's precisely what TNT's Dallas did! The reunion movies weren't canon, the Ramos family was transferred into the LORIMAR version, and aspects of the original Dallas continuity were changed

The retcons were done frequently on the classic soaps, it's not one of my favourite soap tactics but it happens.
And being a bad sequel (as most of you consider TNTD to be) doesn't mean it's a fake sequel.

TNT's Dallas likely influenced some of those opinions later on, but that doesn't mean we look at the show as canon.

Of course everyone's free to dismiss the sequel as fake, as something that didn't happen in Ewingverse. But that applies to everything that happened.
Otherwise it's like saying "I watched Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs last night, but I don't like the dwarfs therefore they weren't real".

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

The retcons were done frequently on the classic soaps, it's not one of my favourite soap tactics but it happens.
And being a bad sequel (as most of you consider TNTD to be) doesn't mean it's a fake sequel.

The most glaring retcon in the original was obviously the dream season. As awful as I found that to be, at least there was exposition explaining why it was no longer canon with the rest of the series. Granted, there were other minor continuity inconsistencies too, but still none as jarring as those on TNT's Dallas. And if I can't consider it to be a fake sequel, why was Cidre allowed to treat JR Returns and WOTE as fake reunion movies? Being bad reunion movies (as most of us consider JRR and WOTE to be) doesn't means they're fake reunions.

Of course everyone's free to dismiss the sequel as fake, as something that didn't happen in Ewingverse. But that applies to everything that happened. Otherwise it's like saying "I watched Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs last night, but I don't like the dwarfs therefore they weren't real".

Some things in TNT Dallas were bound to happen eventually anyway, like JR dying. And John Ross grew up in an incredibly dysfunctional home, so it's not a stretch to believe he grew up to be a dysfunctional adult. Even in JR Returns he was depicted as a bit of a womanizer like his father, while Christopher was the more sensible cousin. So there are similarities.

But if I have to give up Josh Henderson's excellent portrayal of John Ross in order to believe the Ryland and Ramos families never existed, Southfork wasn't turned into an Ikea nightmare, Cliff never became a deranged billionaire killer, and the only cartels on Dallas were involved in oil instead of drugs, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

why was Cidre allowed to treat JR Returns and WOTE as fake reunion movies?

Because it's just a reunion movie. And we all know that reunion movies suck, it's a simple fact.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Because it's just a reunion movie. And we all know that reunion movies suck, it's a simple fact.

Yes, they do suck. But didn't you also say something can be bad, yet not be fake? Didn't they address what happened in the six years after Conundrum while carrying the story forward?

That's why the Rebecca Sutter storyline was such a flop with original viewers. Cidre chose to ignore the reunions, but it doesn't negate what us diehards had previously seen.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Cidre chose to ignore the reunions

Smart woman!

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Smart woman!

That's debatable. I just figure if she had the authority to decide what's canon and what isn't, so do the fans.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Or maybe she thought "shall I please every single Dallas fan or shall I create something very exciting?"
Such a tough dilemma.

 

[Michael Torrance]

Or maybe she thought "shall I please every single Dallas fan or shall I create something very exciting?"

Her ingenuity was in managing to do neither.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Or maybe she thought "shall I please every single Dallas fan or shall I create something very exciting?"
Such a tough dilemma.

What does making a show exciting have to do with maintaining continuity? Come on, that's just excusing laziness. She promised to preserve the show's history and failed to deliver.

And if her idea of "exciting" was doing the type of storylines you'd see on Breaking Bad, 24, CSI, and Law and Order, then maybe she should have helmed one of those shows instead. She was an interloper who pushed the creator of the show out, and who demonstrated she had no interest in the source material. It shouldn't be a "tough dilemma" to do a continuation of a show that feels like a legitimate extension of that show, rather than a crime drama/telenovela. Your sarcasm seems to stem from not everybody being in love with the show like you are.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You say fans can't pick and choose what's canon, but you applaud Cidre for doing the same damn thing.

Her ingenuity was in managing to do neither.

So true. Most of her storylines had been done immensely better on other shows. Pitty she wanted to do every type of show except Dallas, and even failed at that.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

You say fans can't pick and choose what's canon

Because it doesn't make sense to acknowledge only a part of a fictional story. Just, take a moment and think about it.

You say fans can't pick and choose what's canon, but you applaud Cidre for doing the same damn thing

I am not applauding her for continuity errors, I applaud her for creating such an exciting Dallas sequel.

Your sarcasm seems to stem from not everybody being in love with the show like you are

What sarcasm? I said it was a smart decision to ignore the reunion movies.
And of course she can choose whatever she likes for her fictional story. Because it's her story, and no-one says you have to like it.
The question in the OP is: "do you accept it?" YES or NO.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Because it doesn't make sense to acknowledge only a part of a fictional story. Just, take a moment and think about it.

When writers only acknowledge part of a fictional story, they invite fans to do the same thing. Some fans treat the seasons after the dream as an alternate universe, much like Knots did.

And as I said before, JR would have died eventually even without TNT's Dallas, while John Ross and Christopher were developing similar personalities in JRR.

I am not applauding her for continuity errors, I applaud her for creating such an exciting Dallas sequel.

A sequel which you found exciting. I feel about new Dallas the way you feel about CW Dynasty.

What sarcasm? I said it was a smart decision to ignore the reunion movies.

I'm talking in terms of you saying "tough dilemma" when it comes to making the show exciting vs. making it appealing to original fans. Considering the ratings fell quicker than Jock Ewing's helicopter, I'd say the consensus among the majority is that she accomplished neither. But hey, that's how it goes. I've enjoyed short lived shows others thought were trash too.

And as for her ignoring the reunion movies being "smart," it reinforces my original point that we can just as easily dismiss her show from the Dallasverse.

And of course she can choose whatever she likes for her fictional story. Because it's her story, and no-one says you have to like it.
The question in the OP is: "do you accept it?" YES or NO.

I accept it in terms of existing. I don't accept it as part of the original show's universe. Ultimately, it was David Jacobs story that she and even Leonard Katzman ended up bastardizing.

 

[stevew]

When writers only acknowledge part of a fictional story, they invite fans to do the same thing. Some fans treat the seasons after the dream as an alternate universe, much like Knots did.

And as I said before, JR would have died eventually even without TNT's Dallas, while John Ross and Christopher were developing similar personalities in JRR.


A sequel which you found exciting. I feel about new Dallas the way you feel about CW Dynasty.


I'm talking in terms of you saying "tough dilemma" when it comes to making the show exciting vs. making it appealing to original fans. Considering the ratings fell quicker than Jock Ewing's helicopter, I'd say the consensus among the majority is that she accomplished neither. But hey, that's how it goes. I've enjoyed short lived shows others thought were trash too.

And as for her ignoring the reunion movies being "smart," it reinforces my original point that we can just as easily dismiss her show from the Dallasverse.

I accept it in terms of existing. I don't accept it as part of the original show's universe. Ultimately, it was David Jacobs story that she and even Leonard Katzman ended up bastardizing.

I totally agree with “Ultimately, it was David Jacobs story that she and even Leonard Katzman ended up bastardizing.” But I still can’t ignore what we saw asvit seens just disrespectful to the people I knew watching it. A continuing Dallas from here should ignore nothing and should be loyal mostly to Jacobs vision - that’s a winner and a money maker which needs to happen.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

I totally agree with “Ultimately, it was David Jacobs story that she and even Leonard Katzman ended up bastardizing.” But I still can’t ignore what we saw asvit seens just disrespectful to the people I knew watching it. A continuing Dallas from here should ignore nothing and should be loyal mostly to Jacobs vision - that’s a winner and a money maker which needs to happen.

Ignoring and retconning are two different things. You can ignore a storyline from the past by not mentioning it, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. With a retcon, a piece of the story is removed from the universe, which was the case with the dream season and the reunion movies. I'd say about 95% of TNT's Dallas could be ignored rather than retconning it outright.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

I'd say about 95% of TNT's Dallas could be ignored rather than retconning it outright.

Yes, and if there was going to be a third Dallas - as entertaining as the first two Dallases - then it wouldn't bother me whatsoever if they ignored stories from TNT Dallas.
It's not that I don't appreciate a proper continuity, after all it's the very essence of these ongoing stories, but some continuity errors here and there don't spoil my viewing pleasure.
Some errors are more jarring than others, but when a significant amount of time as passed between the First and Second version then I tend to be more forgiving.
Take Dynasty season 9, for example. Some things didn't make sense in the grand scheme of things, but it was still Dynasty and it was a fantastic season (one of the favourites amongst many Dynasty fans).

Maybe...how shall I put this without creating a forum backlash - is it possible that some of you are taking DALLAS just a tiny little bit too seriously?
Don't get me wrong, I take my soaps (all of them) seriously too, simply because it's my favourite form of TV entertainment.
But a soap is not really a story, it's an experience, a journey and it's also a very fluctuating narrative. You don't know what's going to happen next an basically the sky is the limit.
Personally, I find continuity errors between two episodes far more annoying than a retcon that happens 10 or 20 years later.
Because the retcon doesn't retroactively change the past, it only changes the story in the present.
That's why the alterations in TNT Dallas have zero impact on the Lorimar Dallas stories. Both versions are canon.

It was my impression that New Dallas was mostly written for the next generation, what matters to them is what matters to New Dallas.
One could even argue that the original cast members were supporting characters, and yet they got plenty of screen time and lots of dramatic and exciting storylines.
And to watch these former TV icons in a modernized wide-screen setting (and who knew that it would happen for real!) is just exhilirating.

Get rid of that checklist of all the things that don't make sense or never happened and enjoy the ride. There's so much in it that actually does hark back to the essence of the classic Dallas saga.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Yes, and if there was going to be a third Dallas - as entertaining as the first two Dallases - then it wouldn't bother me whatsoever if they ignored stories from TNT Dallas.
It's not that I don't appreciate a proper continuity, after all it's the very essence of these ongoing stories, but some continuity errors here and there don't spoil my viewing pleasure.
Some errors are more jarring than others, but when a significant amount of time as passed between the First and Second version then I tend to be more forgiving.
Take Dynasty season 9, for example. Some things didn't make sense in the grand scheme of things, but it was still Dynasty and it was a fantastic season (one of the favourites amongst many Dynasty fans).

Maybe...how shall I put this without creating a forum backlash - is it possible that some of you are taking DALLAS just a tiny little bit too seriously?
Don't get me wrong, I take my soaps (all of them) seriously too, simply because it's my favourite form of TV entertainment.
But a soap is not really a story, it's an experience, a journey and it's also a very fluctuating narrative. You don't know what's going to happen next an basically the sky is the limit.
Personally, I find continuity errors between two episodes far more annoying than a retcon that happens 10 or 20 years later.
Because the retcon doesn't retroactively change the past, it only changes the story in the present.
That's why the alterations in TNT Dallas have zero impact on the Lorimar Dallas stories. Both versions are canon.

It was my impression that New Dallas was mostly written for the next generation, what matters to them is what matters to New Dallas.
One could even argue that the original cast members were supporting characters, and yet they got plenty of screen time and lots of dramatic and exciting storylines.
And to watch these former TV icons in a modernized wide-screen setting (and who knew that it would happen for real!) is just exhilirating.

Get rid of that checklist of all the things that don't make sense or never happened and enjoy the ride. There's so much in it that actually does hark back to the essence of the classic Dallas saga.

I hear what your saying, but I think the checklists fans have are often tied into their overall enjoyment. My dad is more like you. He doesn't care if the details and characterizations are consistent, so long as the show keeps him enthralled and entertained. I love an entertaining show as much as the next person. However, inconsistencies automatically pull me out of the story, no matter how great it might be. I keep going back to the revelation that Pamela Sutter was really Cliff's daughter Pamela Rebecca. Having seen John Ross and Christopher meet her in JR Returns, I was never able to buy into the revised version of events. As lame as it might have been, having JR talk about hallucinating the events of the reunions might have helped it go down better. I thought the dream was a terrible way to revive Bobby, but it did provide a cut and tried explanation as to why the previous season was no longer canon.

Even Cliff's extravagant, murderous behavior could have been explained by blaming it on neurofibromatosis. As a huge fan of Breaking Bad, I must say that show spoiled me. Never in my life have I seen a show that was masterfully entertaining AND meticulously detailed at the same time. There was no fat on that pig, that's for sure. Better Call Saul (BB's prequel) is the same way. You can tell Vince Gilligan takes pride in not only churning out high quality content, but also making sure everything aligns properly. Because of my love for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, I have checklists for every show I watch. I can overlook certain things if they're minor or the details are vague, but huge, jarring changes are another story. As for capturing the essence of the original Dallas, I certainly think there were scenes that did that. However, the overall product missed the mark. To sum it up, it wasn't for everybody.