Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 422284" data-attributes="member: 8">In a way that already happened when Fallon&#039;s mother showed up, and perhaps these main characters (Blake, Alexis and Krystle) shouldn&#039;t have any origins stories. Juicy stuff from the past, of course, but in DYNASTY it worked best when it was shrouded in mystery, doubt and our own imagination.The idea that the Shepard sisters were moulded (and damaged) by mother dearest worked very well for the DALLAS characters, but I&#039;d hate to see Alexis redeemed because of her mother&#039;s bad influence. She was the grande dame guignol who wouldn&#039;t allow her ex-husband to have a child with another woman.A perfect, angelic woman, hence why Alexis desperately tried to destroy that image with bitchy insults even though she knew she was wrong - which made it all the more frustrating.Bringing in a bigger monster (because anything less would render the grande dame&#039;s appearance null and void) could upstage the series&#039; dark cloud that Alexis was supposed to be, and that&#039;s from a very optimistic point of view that they would succeed in doing so in mid-eighties DYNASTY.I mean, if Alexis&#039; mother is going to be of the same calibre (script wise) as Lady Ashley, then what&#039;s the point?They work very well as legacy characters, which is exactly what Catherine Harrington, Jacqueline Perrault and Ruth Galveston did. They only have to show up and change the course of history in the most devastatingly soapy way. They are characters that the real soap characters talk about.Of course that could also have happened in DYNASTY, but I&#039;m very protective of the Alexis character and old Hollywood grande dame guignol only works when it happens centre stage. Was there any room for that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 422284, member: 8"] In a way that already happened when Fallon's mother showed up, and perhaps these main characters (Blake, Alexis and Krystle) shouldn't have any origins stories. Juicy stuff from the past, of course, but in DYNASTY it worked best when it was shrouded in mystery, doubt and our own imagination. The idea that the Shepard sisters were moulded (and damaged) by mother dearest worked very well for the DALLAS characters, but I'd hate to see Alexis redeemed because of her mother's bad influence. She [I]was[/I] the grande dame guignol who wouldn't allow her ex-husband to have a child with another woman. A perfect, angelic woman, hence why Alexis desperately tried to destroy that image with bitchy insults even though she [I]knew[/I] she was wrong - which made it all the more frustrating. Bringing in a bigger monster (because anything less would render the grande dame's appearance null and void) could upstage the series' dark cloud that Alexis was supposed to be, and that's from a very optimistic point of view that they would [I]succeed[/I] in doing so in mid-eighties DYNASTY. I mean, if Alexis' mother is going to be of the same calibre (script wise) as Lady Ashley, then what's the point? They work very well as legacy characters, which is exactly what Catherine Harrington, Jacqueline Perrault and Ruth Galveston did. They only have to show up and change the course of history in the most devastatingly soapy way. They are characters that the real soap characters talk about. Of course that could also have happened in DYNASTY, but I'm very protective of the Alexis character and old Hollywood grande dame guignol only works when it happens centre stage. Was there any room for that? [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =