Dallas had our attention, but did it have our respect?

[Snarky Oracle!]

But that was the only way to make it work.

Yes, it's got to be played straight on the face of it, and when DALLAS moved away from that, it didn't work anymore.

For all the polish and cleverness of modern series, there's something about them that are so smug and earnest in their attempts to impress you (while also pretending they don't care) that I resist them. Respectability be danged.

Speaking very generally, I think American TV has traditionally tended towards the aspirational ("this is who you could be") whereas British TV has been more about the identifiable ("this is who you are"). This is clear in the soaps - glossy versus gritty - but also other genres. When reality TV first hit big around 2000, I don't think it's any coincidence that America went nuts for Survivor, which was all about winning and beating the odds and being the best, while we were glued to Big Brother, which was all about making cups of tea while staring into space. Americans only came round to BB when they made it more competitive and Survivor-like. Of course, there are exceptions: the blue-collar Archie Bunker-style US sitcoms of the 70s for instance, which sadly we never got to see, maybe because they weren't regarded as exotically "other" enough to import.

Although I think that's the industry as opposed to the American publc. NYC and LA run the entire country's media, are always on to the newest thing, and care not at all about the 3,000 miles in between the two coasts. Middle America seems always fond of old hits (like DALLAS) but the coasts have no memory of anything that happened before 6 o'clcok this morning. And, frankly, that neglect helped give us Trump.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Of course, seeing the joins on Dallas is part of its charm.

Yes indeed. Sometimes literally.

When reality TV first hit big around 2000, I don't think it's any coincidence that America went nuts for Survivor, which was all about winning and beating the odds and being the best, while we were glued to Big Brother, which was all about making cups of tea while staring into space. Americans only came round to BB when they made it more competitive and Survivor-like.

Oh wow. Such a great observation.

Even on the soaps, almost everyone has glossier hair than they used to.

I feel a little sad about that.

 

[Willie Oleson]

For all the polish and cleverness of modern series, there's something about them that are so smug and earnest in their attempts to impress you (while also pretending they don't care)

Well I guess in essence it's always about manipulation, but when it looks so good that I don't feel being manipulated then I'm inclined to take it and enjoy it at face value.
I mean, there must be a reason why some writers, directors, camera men, actors etc are better than others.

A brooding looking character on the beach with a Lana Del Rey song in the background is not my idea of subtle manipulation.
Although it usually works very well for the trailers!

 

[Lastkidpicked]

You know, "respect" seems such an odd word when it comes to art and entertainment.
I am often impressed by great performances or clever plotting, and that's why I like it or love it.
But it feels so weird to say "I respect Dallas or Knots Landing or..." - it sounds too religiously imho.

There may be one area where the word "respect" is appropriate when it comes to Dallas.

Speaking as a person who lives here, I respect the writers for being faithful to the "feel" of Dallas (the city) and the "feel" of Texas. Here are some fun examples:

People have said that it is unrealistic that just anybody can walk up the driveway at Southfork Ranch. Jaimie walked right up to the swimming pool even looking like a bum. Callie even got inside during dinner! "Mrs. Ewing is here to see you." "No, not THAT Mrs. Ewing".

If you spend some time here, you'll see that this is very realistic. I used to deliver to some of the ranches like Southfork. Either the gate at the end of the driveway was simply left open during the day, or the ranch foreman would say, "The gate code is 1234 or 1111" or something else that anybody could guess!

A few more things they got just right:

This is exactly what Jock would drive:

And once he had money, this is exactly what a successful ranch foreman would drive:

One last thing they did to capture the feel of Dallas and Texas in general. No matter how much money Jock Ewing had, he was more comfortable at the Cattleman's Club and at the auction then he would be at a high society affair (Excluding the Oil Barron's Ball, of course!)

So, I will go out on a limb and say that I respect the writers for working so hard to get those little details just right.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

There may be one area where the word "respect" is appropriate when it comes to Dallas.

Speaking as a person who lives here, I respect the writers for being faithful to the "feel" of Dallas (the city) and the "feel" of Texas. Here are some fun examples:

People have said that it is unrealistic that just anybody can walk up the driveway at Southfork Ranch. Jaimie walked right up to the swimming pool even looking like a bum. Callie even got inside during dinner! "Mrs. Ewing is here to see you." "No, not THAT Mrs. Ewing".

If you spend some time here, you'll see that this is very realistic. I used to deliver to some of the ranches like Southfork. Either the gate at the end of the driveway was simply left open during the day, or the ranch foreman would say, "The gate code is 1234 or 1111" or something else that anybody could guess!

A few more things they got just right:

This is exactly what Jock would drive:

And once he had money, this is exactly what a successful ranch foreman would drive:

One last thing they did to capture the feel of Dallas and Texas in general. No matter how much money Jock Ewing had, he was more comfortable at the Cattleman's Club and at the auction then he would be at a high society affair (Excluding the Oil Barron's Ball, of course!)

So, I will go out on a limb and say that I respect the writers for working so hard to get those little details just right.

This helps explain why I didn't consider Dallas a soap (at last the first half of it or so), but a continued drama with a western style to it. In my experience, I tend to hear the word "soap" used to describe a trashy kind of show - not something that would put in the effort to have this level of attention to detail.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I was interested in seeing how popular The Sopranos actually was, since the OP compared it to Dallas. The biggest audience for a Sopranos episode was 13.4 million people. That was their peak and it was the first episode of their fourth season. That was the record for HBO until Game Of Thrones broke it repeatedly and eventually far surpassed it with an audience of 19.3 million people.

Those are respectable numbers. It shows there was certainly an audience for those shows. Dallas had an audience of 33 million for Conundrum - the finale. It's actually a bigger audience than the Sopranos and Game Of Thrones had combined!

But that wasn't their most watched episode. It wasn't even close. The episode where we found out who shot JR drawn audience of over 90 million.

The Sopranos - 13.4 million

Dallas - 90 million

13.4 million is respectable. 90 million is phenomenal.

 

[Rove]

the soap was also a favourite subject of the legendarily wry Observer TV critic Clive James. “It was never embraced as quality television because, frankly, it wasn’t,” says Moran now. As such, Dallas’s influence on the shows that came after was limited: “Part of its appeal was that it was very American and very different

I found some of these quotes condescending. While Dallas was firmly entrenched in Texas its themes exploring social issues were universal. I don't view Dallas as "very American." In some countries I can see why viewers would distinctly see it as "very American" but Australia and Texas share similar themes in regards to its ruggedness, natural resources to be exploited by businessmen and cattle ranching.

Dallas proved to television executives there was a market for adult contemporary drama. It gave birth to Dynasty, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing and paved the way for Hill Street Blues, L.A. LAW, The Sopranos and Breaking Bad. Dallas sent the benchmark for cliffhangers. Sure Dallas lost its way when the producers attempt in re-casting the role of Miss Ellie was met with an eye roll from long time viewers. It's biggest failure of course was the return of Bobby. Debated fiercely among us - and rightly so - and used I suspect by many of those snobbish critiques to justify their existence in claiming Dallas was American trailer trash.

 

[James from London]

I was interested in seeing how popular The Sopranos actually was, since the OP compared it to Dallas.

To be pedantic, I didn't compare them, the article I quoted did. And it's not a comparison between the series themselves or their ratings, but how British perception of American television has changed between their respective eras.

As the century ended and the golden era dawned – The Sopranos first aired on British television in the summer of 1999 – UK attitudes to US television were completely transformed from lazy derision of the likes of Dallas to breathless admiration.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I found some of these quotes condescending. While Dallas was firmly entrenched in Texas its themes exploring social issues were universal. I don't view Dallas as "very American." In some countries I can see why viewers would distinctly see it as "very American" but Australia and Texas share similar themes in regards to its ruggedness, natural resources to be exploited by businessmen and cattle ranching.

Dallas proved to television executives there was a market for adult contemporary drama. It gave birth to Dynasty, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing and paved the way for Hill Street Blues, L.A. LAW, The Sopranos and Breaking Bad. Dallas sent the benchmark for cliffhangers. Sure Dallas lost its way when the producers attempt in re-casting the role of Miss Ellie was met with an eye roll from long time viewers. It's biggest failure of course was the return of Bobby. Debated fiercely among us - and rightly so - and used I suspect by many of those snobbish critiques to justify their existence in claiming Dallas was American trailer trash.

It's one thing to disagree with or rebut views that someone expressed four decades ago with the benefit of hindsight. Just as it is to point out all the reasons one feels it should have been respected, as others have done in this thread. But the comments you quoted prove that those attitudes existed at the time, which is what the article was asking.

Brits enjoyed Dallas in their tens of millions. But many had one tongue firmly in their cheek, which added to the enjoyment. It's why people like Terry Wogan did so well out of it. And we certainly can't criticise him for that, since his cheeky commentaries gained the series more viewers.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

To be pedantic, I didn't compare them, the article I quoted did. And it's not a comparison between the series themselves or their ratings, but how British perception of American television has changed between their respective eras.

As the century ended and the golden era dawned – The Sopranos first aired on British television in the summer of 1999 – UK attitudes to US television were completely transformed from lazy derision of the likes of Dallas to breathless admiration.

By OP I meant original post -not original poster. I'm not sure if there's a consensus on which one OP is supposed to mean.

The numbers indicate there were a whole lot more people admiring Dallas than The Sopranos.

Debated fiercely among us - and rightly so - and used I suspect by many of those snobbish critiques to justify their existence in claiming Dallas was American trailer trash.

That's how the people who are professional critics come across - snobbish. There isn't one critic or even a hundred of them that decides what is great. The masses decide what's great. We can all have our opinions on what we think is great but the critics act like their opinions matter so much more than another person's opinion and they don't. Critics don't decide what becomes a success; millions of people decide what becomes a success.

When the people decide they love a show that the critics told them not to like, they respond with something juvenile like calling it "American trailer park trash." Only poor people watched Dallas? Then how did it get such a big audience? Besides, when has the average income of the audience determined how good something is? Only rich people have good taste? Donald Trump is a multi-billionire so I guess that makes him a paragon of good taste! They're snobby to the point of delusional.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Critics don't decide what becomes a success

That's not what a critic tries to achieve.

The masses decide what's great

They "decide" (by way of responding to) what becomes popular.

 

[James from London]

By OP I meant original post -not original poster. I'm not sure if there's a consensus on which one OP is supposed to mean.

Fair enough.

That's how the people who are professional critics come across - snobbish.

critics act like their opinions matter so much more than another person's opinion

I think that very much depends on the individual critic.

Only poor people watched Dallas?

I've never heard or read anyone say that.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

They "decide" (by way of responding to) what becomes popular.

That is the objective. It's show business. The object is to attract an audience - the bigger the better.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Attraction/appeal is not a synonym for quality.
Aqua's barbie girl was an international hitsingle.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

That is the objective. It's show business. The object is to attract an audience - the bigger the better.

Nobody's disputing Dallas was popular or successful. But the point I understood Willie to make was that popularity isn't necessarily a measure of greatness and doesn't have to reflect how well-made or respected it is.

MacDonald's serve sixty eight million users (their term for customers) a day. They, too, achieve their objective of attracting the masses. But that doesn't mean the food they serve is better than every other restaurant. Nor will it make them the most respected.

As I said, people can go on all day long about ratings and success and whatnot. But none of that is in dispute here.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Nobody's disputing Dallas was popular or successful. But the point I understood Willie to make was that popularity isn't necessarily a measure of greatness and doesn't have to reflect how well-made or respected it is.

That's how he sees it and that's fine, but I don't agree. If people watch and continue to watch, they see value in it. If only a few people see any value in it, then it gets cancelled. Those few people may still say it was great, but if the show got cancelled, they don't get to see it anymore, so what's the point?

MacDonald's serve sixty eight million users (their term for customers) a day. They, too, achieve their objective of attracting the masses. But that doesn't mean the food they serve is better than every other restaurant. Nor will it make them the most respected.

That's not a good comparison - McDonald's sells a lot of food because it's very affordable and it's very quick and convenient It's not that people don't think the restaurant with the $10 hamburger is better; they just can't afford it, don't have time for it, or don't have convenient access to it.

It didn't cost any more to watch Dallas than Hill Street Blues or any other drama series at that time. The only cost - your one hour of time - was equal. When all other factors are equal, the best show gets the biggest audience.

 

[James from London]

We've been over this ground before. If you want or need to nail things down in definitive black and white terms, then "popularity equals quality" will do it for you (although I guess to follow this equation to its logical end, you have to compare ratings of everything all over the world). But it's probably the least interesting way of looking at things. If it comes down to "This episode is definitively better than that episode because more people watched it", then that's kind of boring.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

That's not a good comparison - McDonald's sells a lot of food because it's very affordable and it's very quick and convenient It's not that people don't think the restaurant with the $10 hamburger is better; they just can't afford it, don't have time for it, or don't have convenient access to it.

You're proving my point. There are indeed numerous factors for why many people might choose to enjoy something.

We've been over this ground before. If you want or need to nail things down in definitive black and white terms, then "popularity equals quality" will do it for you (although I guess to follow this equation to its logical end, you have to compare ratings of everything all over the world). But it's probably the least interesting way of looking at things. If it comes down to "This episode is definitively better than that episode because more people watched it", then that's kind of boring.

Yes. It's also assuming that watching and enjoying a TV series is an endorsement of its quality. When sometimes only mindless crap will hit the spot.

 

[Alexis]

I was interested in seeing how popular The Sopranos actually was, since the OP compared it to Dallas. The biggest audience for a Sopranos episode was 13.4 million people. That was their peak and it was the first episode of their fourth season. That was the record for HBO until Game Of Thrones broke it repeatedly and eventually far surpassed it with an audience of 19.3 million people.

Those are respectable numbers. It shows there was certainly an audience for those shows. Dallas had an audience of 33 million for Conundrum - the finale. It's actually a bigger audience than the Sopranos and Game Of Thrones had combined!

But that wasn't their most watched episode. It wasn't even close. The episode where we found out who shot JR drawn audience of over 90 million.

The Sopranos - 13.4 million

Dallas - 90 million

13.4 million is respectable. 90 million is phenomenal.

All those numbers are kind of pointless though and you cant use them to compare the shows as the way people view television has changed so dramatically since the 1980s. No show now is going to garner those epic viewing figures as there are so many channels and so many other platforms on which to view shows.

 

[Alexis]

I don't understand this idea that popularity and viewing figures has anything at all to do with quality. Keeping Up With The Kardashians is very popular all over the world and is now on season 18. Does that make it a great show or even a good one?