nuDynasty Episode Chat S204 Snowflakes In Hell

[Rove]

Blake's mood swings remind me of a toddler. It's not just this episode, of course, but it really was showcased here with his behavior toward Anders. He tosses things, he insults Anders in front of the staff

It's one of the many aspects I'm having difficulty with this reboot. I could excuse Blake's behaviour if the pressure of business was getting to him. So far I'm not seeing a lot of the business story in this revision. Alexis hasn't really done much to warrant Blake's ill temper...well perhaps sleeping with the help. Of course Blake could be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after the events of last season but that looks to be all neatly tidied up...because the producers want to distance themselves from that actress.

Which leaves no excuses for Blake's toddler like behaviour. You're a grown man, head of the household. You were once head of a company which I'm still trying to work out what it was. Reminds me of Newman Enterprises on The Young and the Restless. It's there to account for the filthy rich family but best to leave those details hidden from the viewer as they're too dumb to keep up with the business shenanigans. Hello! We grew up with Dallas. We know how things work.

I want Blake to be a commanding figure. Not sidelined like he was in original Dynasty. Stand up. Get some balls and beat (figure of speech) the other characters into submission.

 

[Zable]

Apparently, less than 3 mins and 22 secs was all the time it took to make Snowflakes in Hell the funniest episode of S2.

How would these folk rate the drama that made up the rest of the episode?

 

[Zable]

Does anyone know if Snowflakes in Hell is a line from original dynasty or ties-in with a story from that show? Am wondering if it is an allusion to something contemporary. In S2, Ep 1 cwDynastyFallon mentions Blake's phoenix beard. In Ep4, when admonishing him, she mentions rising from the ashes. Sure, Phoenix was a O.DS9 character; and it's appropriate that Blake/the family should try to rise from the ashes after the sale of CA -- but I'm also reminded that we see snowflakes in the final poignant scenes of The Rise of Phoenixes, so I'm wondering if there's a message in that episode title.

Oh, i thought it was on purpose and a hint at Jon "you know nuffing" Snow from GOT, that's why i laughed.

I realised you thought it was on purpose, but I thought you thought I was punning on the episode's title (because I have assumed that the snowflakes referred to are the Carringtons). I didn't have Jon Snow in mind because, believe it or not, I've never watched GoT nor followed the news about it or the actors.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I would hate to imagine the carnage in an episode thread like this had the Internet and this board been around in the 1980s for zingers like 'The Treasure,'The Aftermath' (either one of the two),' 'Valez' or many other.

I'm not surprised by the outburst of negative criticism for this episode. Not because I hated it myself, since I didn't find it particularly better or worse than the preceding ones, but because there is obvious simmering resentment towards the new series that was bound to come to a boil when the show departed from their weekly modus operandi and took a seemingly random trip to Paraguay. The first review set the tone and the others seem to have followed suit.

Yes, I'd love the careful balance between serious character-driven drama and soapiness that Peyton Place and 80s soaps (in their early seasons) managed to strike. But, I still don't get the weekly outrage - the show looks and feels exactly like what you would expect in a post-Desperate Housewives TV landscape, conceived by the people whose credits include The O.C., Gossip Girl and Revenge and airing on The CW network, which seems to strictly operate in two modes - dark comic book superheroes genre series and played for laughs light-hearted dramedies.

Even ABC's addictively trashy Revenge that started off with the right balance, ultimately succumbed to these prevailing 2010s constraints and - given its concept - went the dark-comic book route. nuDynasty was never going to be anything else.

Though I admit some of that addictive momentum of late season 1 seems to have gotten lost in the time-jump between the seasons, I continue to like the new series. And not because of the details like superior episode titles, playful nods to the original or outdoor scenes filmed at an actual mansion. There is certain overall competence about this production (a must in 2018 with 500+ series competing for eyeballs) that at some point in the 80s they simply stopped bothering with.

 

[Michael Torrance]

With this version of Dynasty I also suspect many on this site pinned their hopes on this reboot succeeding where the original had failed. I'll be honest I didn't stick around with old Dynasty like I did with Dallas but I did appreciate those early seasons...before the silliness crept in.

I don't think any DYNASTY fans thought the peach reboot would do better what the original had not done. I for one just wanted the brand not to be tarnished, because even with bad episodes like season 6A and 7B, overall I loved the show. Sadly it is doing just that.
With TNT Dallas the potential and danger were there in a smaller degree, because it was a continuation and it had so many original actors. A reboot is always a much more combustible ingredient, and I'd argue it even takes more skill writing a reboot than writing an original series or a continuation. Cidre was simply wrong for TNT Dallas, but the continuation could have worked with someone else in charge (I was not a fan of the original because I found it too redneck, but I actually was watching the continuation weekly). A reboot even as an idea I was not thrilled about, same way I would have been about a prequel. But this brings me to the next point...

What's wrong with me that I didn't see why this episode was any worse than the others...?
I mean, not that I really liked it or anything.
But everybody else seems to agree it was off-the-charts horrible, leaving me to think there's a dog whistle out there whose pitch I just can't quite hear.

I assume you never let yourself believe the show could be better than the awful mess it had shown itself to be intrinsically, whereas many here were willing to give it the benefit of the doubt after some attempts at the end of season 1 and last episode, and now it has removed all doubt.

I also didn't think it was worse than other peach Dynasty episodes I had seen (in season 1 and the pilot of season 2 for instance). But at the end of episode 3, I was really excited to see the next episode. Now I don't know if I will even remember to watch it next episode (that is usually how I give up on shows, when one day I see 10 episodes piled up and accept I don't care about them anymore).

 

[Michael Torrance]

If the producers are thinking of another recast and the plastic surgery route I will pull the ripcord on that lifeboat.

Nope, I may welcome that depending on whom they cast and how they write him. They butchered Krystle with their Cristal bitchy version and now they are trying to correct that with Cristal Jennings. The current Steven is so bland compared to the Al Corley version (and not even as good looking as Coleman) that I want them to try that route.

Say about DH what you like, but their seasons were always carefully plotted (or at least that was my impression).

I agree. DH lost its emotional core after a while, which is a shame consider the power of its origin story. But it was always a show with an overall plan every season.

I would hate to imagine the carnage in an episode thread like this had the Internet and this board been around in the 1980s for zingers like 'The Treasure,'The Aftermath' (either one of the two),' 'Valez' or many other.

I'm not surprised by the outburst of negative criticism for this episode. Not because I hated it myself, since I didn't find it particularly better or worse than the preceding ones, but because there is obvious simmering resentment towards the new series that was bound to come to a boil

That is probably true--it was the last straw for many people.

If a writer has a sense for where their story is going, I think they may be right to ignore the audience. Imagine if in Game of Thrones season 3, audience demand brought back the Lannisters. People have their opinions, but that doesn't mean writers have to listen to them if they are simply based on viewers not liking what's happening to their favorite characters. But look at the criticism of the last Game of Thrones season: it wasn't for what was happening to the characters, but for characters moving around the land at speeds that were not possible based on what the show established in the previous six seasons. It was simply bad planning because they lacked a book to base it off.

And I am not bringing in the discussion GOT simply for that point, but also because I want to emphasize that the TV landscape has not been simply shaped by DH nor is the peach Dynasty audience one that hasn't seen other shows, from Downton Abbey to House of Cards to what have you. After all peach Dynasty appears among the CW circus in the US, but it is a Netflix offering anywhere else.

 

[Willie Oleson]

the show looks and feels exactly like what you would expect in a post-Desperate Housewives TV landscape, conceived by the people whose credits include The O.C., Gossip Girl and Revenge and airing on The CW network

nuDynasty was never going to be anything else

But for some reason, when I'm watching "Dynasty" I seem to forget about all those arguments.
As soon as the episode starts, I'm in a soap-mindset. It's impossible for me to think "I'm watching Dynasty but it's not really a soap in traditional sense of the word".
And that has nothing to do with high expectations, I had zero expectations when CWD started, the only thing that mattered to me was "a new Dynasty, a new soap, hurray!"

I can't comment on the season 2 episodes, but what bothered me about the first half of season 1 is that it wasn't "soap" enough.
The drama wasn't very dramatic and the funny stuff wasn't really funny and as a result I found it very lame. TNT Dallas may be different things to different fans, but it was never lame, not for one single second.

I'm fine with all the changes - story and characters. Personally I don't feel that Alexis needs to be such-and-such character. I want them to tell their own version.
Ellen Shapiro said that it was going to be younger, hotter, flashier and I also don't mind the cut-to-the-chase approach.
All I want is a soap-y narrative, not just bits and bobs and a half-hearted attempt at comedy.

I feel the show struggles to create an identity, regardless what that identity has to be.
If it's supposed to be OTT godawful trash, then do it that way, or give me a soap-y Dynasty. All I need is something to chew on.
And in this day and age, the sky is the limit. There's almost nothing thet can't do. DYNASTY needs to shine, one way or another.

 

[RottenSkipper17]

Is Steven going to pull a Lucky Spencer and basically disappear from the canvas forever? If that's the case, then they should've just divorced Sammy Jo and Steven and maybe write the both of them off the show. If the showrunners are really looking to recast Steven, then I really can't see how they are going to find a new actor by Christmas.

Man, this show actually had some potential and I was actually looking forward to spending many years watching it but now... I'm almost hoping that Liz Gillies somehow gets a record deal and decides to just walk away from the whole situation so that the CW will be finally forced to cancel Dynasty since I seriously doubt this show can even function without her.

 

[Daniel Avery]

Does anyone know if Snowflakes in Hell is a line from original dynasty or ties-in with a story from that show?

Not sure. I assumed it was a dig/insult at the uselessness of spoiled, pampered "1%-ers" in a situation like this one, where they need to actually do physical labor in a hostile environment. "Snowflake" is a modern insult (the last ten years or so) that mocks younger people who have no "real-life skills" due to their sheltered upbringing.

 

[Michael Torrance]

I can't comment on the season 2 episodes,

Haven't bothered, or not available yet?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I assume you never let yourself believe the show could be better than the awful mess it had shown itself to be intrinsically, whereas many here were willing to give it the benefit of the doubt after some attempts at the end of season 1 and last episode, and now it has removed all doubt.

Okay, so the reason I didn't hate this episode is because I was too closed-minded?

I also didn't think it was worse than other peach Dynasty episodes I had seen (in season 1 and the pilot of season 2 for instance).

But.... but..... you just said......

 

[Tony]

Not sure. I assumed it was a dig/insult at the uselessness of spoiled, pampered "1%-ers" in a situation like this one, where they need to actually do physical labor in a hostile environment. "Snowflake" is a modern insult (the last ten years or so) that mocks younger people who have no "real-life skills" due to their sheltered upbringing.

Fallon in oldDynasty say to Zorelli in Season 9, ‘it will be a cold day in hell before you see those colours again’.

So I assumed that the title was a reference to that. Ie; an event that is not likely to happen again.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Haven't bothered, or not available yet?

I switched to another streaming provider because I had watched everything I wanted to see on netflix. And the other one has the HBO series (Big Litte Lies, Succession, The Deuce).
Once I've finished those and the complete second season of CWDynasty is available I'll go back to netflix to binge Dynasty.

 

[Michael Torrance]

Okay, so the reason I didn't hate this episode is because I was too closed-minded?

No, just a pessimist.

But.... but..... you just said......

I said "it wasn't worse than other peach Dynasty episodes I've seen", for example most of season 1 and the beginning of season 2. Overall, I wouldn't be heartbroken if the show ended tomorrow.
It was worse than occasional good episodes the series has had, like season 2, episode 3. But we need to accept that the occasional good episode is a fluke, not a sign the series will get better.

 

[Matthew Blaisdel]

Fallon in oldDynasty say to Zorelli in Season 9, ‘it will be a cold day in hell before you see those colours again’.

So I assumed that the title was a reference to that. Ie; an event that is not likely to happen again.

Aren't those titles now supposed to be all quotes from the original Alexis? At least that's what i've read somwhere when they promoted the show last year.
So i can imagine it was something completly ridiculous (for Alexis) like small Denver Carrington trying to take over the big ColbyCo and maybe then she said it.
"There will be snowflakes in hell, before that happens!"

 

[Willie Oleson]

"There will be snowflakes in hell, before that happens!"

Like...before there's snowfall in Denver, Colorado?

 

[Michael Torrance]

Aren't those titles now supposed to be all quotes from the original Alexis?

From or to her.

Alexis: "What are you afraid of? That I will reveal more truths about you in the courtroom?"
Blake: "The Day that I am afraid of your 'truths' Alexis, there'll be snowflakes in hell."

Dynasty Season 4, episode 5: The Hearing, part II

 

[Matthew Blaisdel]

So maybe this season those will all be Blakes quotes then? Or maybe just anyones quotes from the old show..

edit: ok, from or to her. I missed that.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And, of course, today there's additional subtext of "snowflake" being, in the parlance of the present, a patronizing description of the very spoiled.

 

[Emelee]

This show is totally unrealistic (not in a charming way) and jumps sharks left and right. I turned it off when they all found Steven & Sammy Jo. What a joke. I feel bad for Steven, he's surrounded by psychos, he even married a monster. And Anders is a typical absentee daddy. He just keeps dragging Kirby through the mud, doesn't he? Yikes. And I was so upset when Fallon literally kicked Alexis out of their mansion in the beginning and dropped her insurance check on the ground. What the hell? She's just there to get humiliated and kicked around. Alexis should have punched her. Fallon is one of the worst characters on TV. I can't stand her and the actress "playing" her. Let me know if it gets any better but I feel like I'm pretty much done for now.

I could not disagree more!!!

Is it really difficult to find a rich & famous volunteer worker who also happens to be your family when you know which city he's in? It's like finding an elephant in a haystack.
Is Sammy a monster? How?
Anders may be an absentee father, but I don't see what is unrealistic about that. He's more dedicated to his job. There are plenty of those people in the world.
And I love Fallon and Elizabeth Gillies. She is the brightest shining star on the show.