What if Lorimar had done Nu Dallas

[Elizabeth Ewins]

I saw the original Dallas as simular to the Waltons in that you had 3 generations living in a house together.Well if Lorimer had done nu dallas that would continue at Southfork. Southfork would have been updated but would have retained the beauty and the charactor of the original southfork. Now for the cast.JR and Sue Ellen and Bobby a must with the original actors.A replacement Pam. A replacement christopher. For John Ross keep as is. No Ramoses! No Rylands! Let there be Barnes and a separate rival Ewings family or a Southworth family. Its entirely possible that Jock or Miss Ellie had siblings with a family!
For writers and producers. The writers must know how to do charactor driven soap opera in the style of the original Dallas. That I insist upon. Good storytelling and charactor developement never goes out of style! Patrick Duffy directs the show. Now for storytelling. Bobby and Pam are divorced and Sue Ellen and JR are divorced. But each has their own wing at Southfork. They bicker with each other. John Ross and Christopher have businesses that compete with each other. They also compete for girlfriends. Eventually they have marriages and families. It will not be a crime show. I want the original Dallas updated for this day and age. But I want the generations to be equal with equal time to each. No more of this secondary charactors. I think it would be interesting for JR and Sue Ellen to be parents to John Rosses children. John Ross inherited Sue Ellens alcoholism and JRs plilandering resulting in an illegitamate child. JR says hes the father in order to save John Ross from ruin. They he and Sue Ellen raise the baby as their own. What do you think Nu Dallas would have been like if Lorimar had done it.

 

[Sea - Boo! - Er]

First of all they would not have shut David Jacobs out.

 

[Rove]

Patrick Duffy directs the show.

Interesting you should bring that up. Patrick directed "Hurt" for TNT Dallas in season 3. Many commented how this episode felt old school, that is the feel of Lorimar Dallas. Patrick of course directed many episodes back in the day.

I'm not sure if Lorimar (if it was still around) could capture the original spirit of Dallas or not. It's a tough one to answer only because far too many outside influences (think executives) are involved with commercial television. To capture those 18-49 eyeballs they sometimes overstep the mark in sexing up shows which involves the following;

1. Threesomes.
2. Quick edit scenes between characters with no dialogue but using Pop Songs to tell the story.
3. Changing character traits so we the viewer no longer recognize them. Think Cliff.

If Dallas was placed in the hands of professionals like David Jacobs and David Paulsen then it may have half a chance. A series with fleshed out stories, prolonged conversations supported by stunning High Definition Photography of Southfork.

 

[Karin Schill]

Patrick did a great job of directing that episode. I wish he'd directed more.

To capture those 18-49 eyeballs they sometimes overstep the mark in sexing up shows which involves the following;

1. Threesomes.
2. Quick edit scenes between characters with no dialogue but using Pop Songs to tell the story.
3. Changing character traits so we the viewer no longer recognize them. Think Cliff.

.

You know I am in that desired 18-49 demo and I hate all of the things mentioned. There was nothing sexy about that threesome. No what was sexy was some of the love scenes on the original show where people were in bed, sheet wrapped and things were left to your imagination.

I like slow paced stories and It sucks when we can no longer recognize the characters since they are plotdriven and not characterdriven.

Also I take it back about the pop songs. That kind of editing can be very effective and appeal to me if the right song is used. If done wrong it can ruin a good scene. Think Sue Ellen starting to drink again before JR's funeral

 

[pete lashmar]

Television has changed so much since the original Lorimar series. With 22+ episodes a year the show was allowed the breathe and unfold - now, whether New Dallas was made by Lorimar or not there would have been pressure for single use cameras, speedy cutting, dizzying speeds and all at the cost of focus on what made Dallas so watchable.

Possibly, if Lorimar had made the new series we may have seen more original characters in the show (with bigger roles), one of the biggest problems with TNT is they made non characters (those that never existed in the original) major ones in their show, pushing The Ewings out more and more.

The threatment of Lucy & Ray was astonishingly poor - 2 major Dallas characters reduced to talking heads in a few episodes and for J.R's funeral/wake we saw the most random turnout from a producer that didn't know her arse from her elbow.

But yes, I digress, Lorimar would have honoured more legacy characters I think.

 

[tommie]

People tend to forget that Lorimar drove both the original Dallas and Falcon Crest into the ground in the last few seasons - both had extensive cast cuts, sets and budgets slashed, on Falcon Crest showrunners came and went etc etc. They also tried to "freshen up" the shows to sometimes so-so results (hello Falcon Crest season 9 theme!); who's to say this all wouldn't have just been repeated with TNTDallas?

Knots also suffered from this, but were mostly able to stave off the negative side effects and never had the lows that both Dallas and Falcon Crest suffered.

 

[Piggyrella Sanderson]

People tend to forget that Lorimar drove both the original Dallas and Falcon Crest into the ground in the last few seasons - both had extensive cast cuts, sets and budgets slashed, on Falcon Crest showrunners came and went etc etc. They also tried to "freshen up" the shows to sometimes so-so results (hello Falcon Crest season 9 theme!); who's to say this all wouldn't have just been repeated with TNTDallas?

Knots also suffered from this, but were mostly able to stave off the negative side effects and never had the lows that both Dallas and Falcon Crest suffered.

I disagree with the latter. Knots had a bigger reputation and CBS didn´t pay attention to them, but its writers teams didn´t seem to want to write original stories. Not that they really checked out continuity either: psychopaths living in the cul-de-sac every year became worn out, and some characters lost the producers´ respect after the first half of the show (once Jacobs was gone temporarily), like Val, Ben, the Williamses, Anne or the youngsters.

So I think it was a lack of logic and pragmatism re the longevity of a prime time soap opera. None of them should have lasted more than 7 years. I also disagree with that popular theory that the viewers who watched the soaps turned to sitcoms. I watch soaps but I´ve hardly watched sitcoms (with Susan Harris' shows being the exception). I know that the numbers speak differently but I also have doubts about the way the ratings were measured back then.

Imagining that Lorimar still existed as a relatively small producing company, let´s say, like J.J. Abrams´ Bad Robot, then they could have managed to do a Dallas reboot with dignity. But Lorimar was devoured by the sharks they jumped when Bobby appeared in the shower and Maggie was drowned in Richard´s pool (water can be deadly for the shows, can´t it?). They had delusions of grandeur and wanted to be a BIG producing company that could make big-screen movies (as they did for a while) and the merger with Telepictures only brought a lack of balance and a cheap look with the video editing.

Sometimes I have the feeling that people forget what a horrid show looks like, especially when it tries to recapture magic that has been gone for 30 years. I knew that Victoria wasn´t coming back so my expectations were low. And I didn´t expect to see Larry, Linda and Patrick to reprise their roles either, so that was a plus, as was the hi-def camera work. Of course, you can´t let an expert in turkeys take care of a herd of cattle, and you-know-who was an expert in "turkeys", just look at her resumé...​

Come you all, come to the fair and get into the freaking Cider House...​

 

[Michael Torrance]

So I think it was a lack of logic and pragmatism re the longevity of a prime time soap opera. None of them should have lasted more than 7 years. I also disagree with that popular theory that the viewers who watched the soaps turned to sitcoms. I watch soaps but I´ve hardly watched sitcoms (with Susan Harris' shows being the exception). I know that the numbers speak differently but I also have doubts about the way the ratings were measured back then.
​

The viewers who watched soaps did not turn to sitcoms. The viewers who turn to whatever is popular turned to sitcoms as they were gaining in popularity. The core audience, a smaller one, could have stayed were the shows not on a suicide course.

7 years is a great limit in hindsight, but back then there was no way a US network would impose such a limit on a cash cow like Dallas. But despite the later years of Lorimar Dallas being lousy, I agree the reboot needed someone other than Warner in charge. They have too many properties in their hand and just handed it off to Cidre for god-knows-what-reason, whereas Lorimar during the early years was very much focused on its soaps.​

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Eventhough the biggest changes (also known as "decline") were probably a matter of neccessity rather than artistic choices, I think these ongoing dramas need to be somewhat challenging. I understand that fans want to hold on to that fantastic "core" - the golden years - and you're not going to lose it anyway, it will remain and it can't be tarnished.

I think I understand what was missing in the last years of Dallas, but what it did was giving us the choice, the opportunity to watch more. You didn't have to, but it was possible to watch all those additional storylines and characters.
To take away that choice ("should have lasted only X years"/"glad TNT Dallas got cancelled") is short-sighted and forgive me for saying this, a little petty too.
You got 14 years of Dallas, I got only 9 years of Dynasty.
Stop crying.

 

[Michael Torrance]

You got 14 years of Dallas, I got only 9 years of Dynasty.

But Dynasty's season 7B feels like 5 years when watching it, so it evens out.

 

[Rove]

I am in that desired 18-49 demo and I hate all of the things mentioned.

You would be one of the few Karin. Unfortunately the commercial executives create a series for that age bracket believing they have the most expendable dollars. I call nonsense on that. I often wonder what the results might be if Dallas - as a continuation - was created with the 49+ viewers in mind. Let the young ones have their reality brain dead TV shows but give the elder market something to sink their teeth into. If handled correctly it might surprise those same executives how many people out here might still long for a series like Dallas. I bet the majority of those 8+ million viewers (U.S.) who tuned into TNT Dallas were around my age or older.

 

[Sea - Boo! - Er]

There was nothing sexy about that threesome.

I'm not sure it was intended to be sexy. It was uncomfortable for all concerned, including the viewers.

 

[tommie]

I'm not sure it was intended to be sexy. It was uncomfortable for all concerned, including the viewers.

Yup - as dumb as Pambecca's supposed "motives" were it wasn't meant to be sexy.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

If Warner Bros. had set up a new production company & stuck the Lorimar name on it, it still wouldn't've worked unless people who were actively involved in the show's production when the Lorimar Dallas itself was originally being made were allowed to be involved in the production & writing of the new series.

It doesn't matter which company was going to make the new series, the show needed people who had worked on it or at least were familiar with the original hit television series. That is the crux of the problem with the Cyntax Dallas, none of the people involved with producing it really truly got what Dallas was about.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Eventhough the biggest changes (also known as "decline") were probably a matter of neccessity rather than artistic choices, I think these ongoing dramas need to be somewhat challenging. I understand that fans want to hold on to that fantastic "core" - the golden years - and you're not going to lose it anyway, it will remain and it can't be tarnished.

I think I understand what was missing in the last years of Dallas, but what it did was giving us the choice, the opportunity to watch more. You didn't have to, but it was possible to watch all those additional storylines and characters.
To take away that choice ("should have lasted only X years"/"glad TNT Dallas got cancelled") is short-sighted and forgive me for saying this, a little petty too.
You got 14 years of Dallas, I got only 9 years of Dynasty.
Stop crying.

Frankly, I think arguing for quantity over quality is short-sighted. Most actors, writers, and producers talk about wanting to see their shows go out on top. They don't want to stick around past their prime and watch as their credibility is lost. Dallas seemed to be the exception. Katzman, Hagman, and company were all happy to stick around until the bitter end because it meant more money. Someone asked Larry what he thought about the decline of the later seasons, and all he commented on was that he made the most money in those years.

A handful of people may have liked the later seasons and the TNT revival, but the masses did not. Personally, wishing they had continued just to appease the minority seems petty to me.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Dallas seemed to be the exception. Katzman, Hagman, and company were all happy to stick around until the bitter end because it meant more money.

Of course. It's their job. Some fans tend to get this idealistic idea that the actors, writers producers do their jobs solely for their love of what they do - show business. That's what it is. But God forbid their favorite actors actually talk about it like a business and treat it like a business!

Someone asked Larry what he thought about the decline of the later seasons, and all he commented on was that he made the most money in those years.

That doesn't come as any surprise to me. Why the hell does anybody go to work every day? For the money!

A handful of people may have liked the later seasons and the TNT revival, but the masses did not. Personally, wishing they had continued just to appease the minority seems petty to me.

Petty? You have the option to watch or not watch. Do you see any problem with everyone else also having the option to watch or not watch? Would you really want the show to get shut down, have all the people working on the show to lose their jobs, and take away the choice to watch or not watch it from everyone else just because you're done watching it?

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Of course. It's their job. Some fans tend to get this idealistic idea that the actors, writers producers do their jobs solely for their love of what they do - show business. That's what it is. But God forbid their favorite actors actually talk about it like a business and treat it like a business!

That doesn't come as any surprise to me. Why the hell does anybody go to work every day? For the money!

Of course it's a business, and of course they do it for the money. But as with any profession, you get kicked out on your ass once your job performance starts to suck. Money is generally the primary motivating factor in any career, but taking pride in one's work should matter too. If a highly skilled doctor began providing substandard care, he wouldn't get to keep his job.

Petty? You have the option to watch or not watch. Do you see any problem with everyone else also having the option to watch or not watch? Would you really want the show to get shut down, have all the people working on the show to lose their jobs, and take away the choice to watch or not watch it from everyone else just because you're done watching it?

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said it's a business. The show fell out of the top ten in 1987, and the ratings went down at least ten points or more each season after that. By 1991, the show came in at an embarrassing 61. If a restaurant lost business because the quality of the food declined, should they stay open so that the employees wouldn't lose their jobs? Is that even a sustainable business model? Of course not. When the quality of Dallas declined, the fans left in droves. And when the novelty of new Dallas wore off and they realized it wasn't living up to their expectations, they left in droves yet again. So yes, I do think it's petty to push for television shows to be driven in the ground because a handful of people still watch them.

 

[Rove]

And when the novelty of new Dallas wore off and they realized it wasn't living up to their expectations, they left in droves yet again.

To right, only this time TNT did not hesitate to pull the plug, leaving us with the mother of all cliffhangers.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Of course it's a business, and of course they do it for the money. But as with any profession, you get kicked out on your ass once your job performance starts to suck. Money is generally the primary motivating factor in any career, but taking pride in one's work should matter too. If a highly skilled doctor began providing substandard care, he wouldn't get to keep his job.



Now you're contradicting yourself. You said it's a business. The show fell out of the top ten in 1987, and the ratings went down at least ten points or more each season after that. By 1991, the show came in at an embarrassing 61. If a restaurant lost business because the quality of the food declined, should they stay open so that the employees wouldn't lose their jobs? Is that even a sustainable business model? Of course not. When the quality of Dallas declined, the fans left in droves. And when the novelty of new Dallas wore off and they realized it wasn't living up to their expectations, they left in droves yet again. So yes, I do think it's petty to push for television shows to be driven in the ground because a handful of people still watch them.

There is no contradiction. It is a business. Why would you shut down a profitable business? If the show wasn't making a profit anymore, unless there was reason to believe they could turn things around and start making money again, the network would cancel it, wouldn't they?

You advocated shutting it down years before it was cancelled, while it was still making money. Who does that?

 

[Spooky Owl!]

Someone asked Larry what he thought about the decline of the later seasons, and all he commented on was that he made the most money in those years.

He did later concede that the last couple of years "weren't up to par" (while Patrick admitted that they "lost objectivity" in the closing years about what "qualified as a good story") .