Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James from London" data-source="post: 288989" data-attributes="member: 22">I don&#039;t object to the contradictions or paradoxes or the open-endedness of it all. I find the differences and similarities between all the different versions - David Jacobs&#039; original DALLAS (the mini-series), Lee Raintree&#039;s DALLAS (the prequel novel), Leonard Katzman&#039;s DALLAS, Knots&#039; version of DALLAS, Val Ewing&#039;s fictionalised version of DALLAS, Pam Ewing&#039;s dream version of DALLAS, DALLAS: The Early Years, the reunion films and New DALLAS - fascinating: how the various interpretations sometimes dovetail neatly together and at other times wildly contradict each other. The Ewingverse contains multitudes.I wonder if it&#039;s because I read Lee Raintree&#039;s book at such a formative time - around the same period I was first getting into the original series. The book differs greatly from the show - some characters have different names, different paternities etc. - yet it painted such a hugely evocative picture of the Ewing family that complemented what I was seeing on screen as much as it contradicted it. So I guess it&#039;s the feel, the atmosphere, the mythos of the saga that I respond to as much as the minutiae of it (and I like the minutiae plenty too).As an ongoing series, I&#039;m not sure DALLAS was ever really designed to &quot;end.&quot; FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS and SIX FEET UNDER are two recent series that went to a lot of trouble to provide viewers with a nice, neat definitive ending. I appreciated the effort they went to, but I found both finales strangely unsatisfying. They almost felt too neat and tidy, leaving nothing to the imagination. I guess I like a few loose ends, maybe cos that&#039;s more like real life.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James from London, post: 288989, member: 22"] I don't object to the contradictions or paradoxes or the open-endedness of it all. I find the differences and similarities between all the different versions - David Jacobs' original DALLAS (the mini-series), Lee Raintree's DALLAS (the prequel novel), Leonard Katzman's DALLAS, Knots' version of DALLAS, Val Ewing's fictionalised version of DALLAS, Pam Ewing's dream version of DALLAS, DALLAS: The Early Years, the reunion films and New DALLAS - fascinating: how the various interpretations sometimes dovetail neatly together and at other times wildly contradict each other. The Ewingverse contains multitudes. I wonder if it's because I read Lee Raintree's book at such a formative time - around the same period I was first getting into the original series. The book differs greatly from the show - some characters have different names, different paternities etc. - yet it painted such a hugely evocative picture of the Ewing family that complemented what I was seeing on screen as much as it contradicted it. So I guess it's the feel, the atmosphere, the mythos of the saga that I respond to as much as the minutiae of it (and I like the minutiae plenty too). As an ongoing series, I'm not sure DALLAS was ever really designed to "end." FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS and SIX FEET UNDER are two recent series that went to a lot of trouble to provide viewers with a nice, neat definitive ending. I appreciated the effort they went to, but I found both finales strangely unsatisfying. They almost felt [I]too[/I] neat and tidy, leaving nothing to the imagination. I guess I like a few loose ends, maybe cos that's more like real life. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?