Mel O'Drama
Admin
For what it's worth I had reservations about the teen basketball backdrop to One Tree Hill but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Do You Consider Dallas To Be Art?
- Thread starter Kenny Coyote
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
For what it's worth I had reservations about the teen basketball backdrop to One Tree Hill but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
I'm probably cheating here, because TYRANT was cancelled - but somehow it felt as if it had to end (or actually, not-really-end) the way it did.
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
Don't bitch-slap the messenger!
James from London
International Treasure
My memory is that it got a bit self-consciously wacky, kind of like DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES but darker.
None that spring to mind, not intentionally. HANNIBAL was cancelled before it could have a proper ENDING, but the way it stopped felt quite satisfying.
Very definitely. You don't need to know any more about American football to enjoy FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS than you do about oil to enjoy DALLAS. All you have to know is it matters. I've a feeling you'd really enjoy it.
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
What a great show that was! Easily in my top 5 of the last 20 years. Connie Britton and Kyle Chandler portrayed the realest, best married couple on TV. What a refreshing change it was to see the two leads in a drama not being in yet another dysfunctional marriage. The whole 'dysfunctional marriage" and "dysfunctional family" thing has been done to death in the TV of the 21st century!
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
Ordered.
Jimmy Todd
Telly Talk Mega Star
A friend of mine and his girlfriend recently saw an exhibit of Robert Mapplethorpe's photography and got into a debate about whether it was art or just exploitation of gay, Black men. Mapplethorpe's art can be very graphic. So, can anything in the right context. And including what the viewer brings to it, be considered art?
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
One of the best exchanges in Friday Night Lights:
Matta Saracen: I 'd like your permission to marry your daughter, sir.
Coach Eric Taylor: (laughs) You what? Say that again?
Matt: I would like to marry Julie. I love her completely and I'm gonna take care of her for the rest of her life so I'd just really like, I'd like your blessing to ask her, to marry me sir
Coach Eric Taylor: Matt, how old are you?
Matt: Nineteen
Coach Taylor: You're only nineteen years old.
Matt: Yes sir.
Coach Eric Taylor: Matt, how old is my daughter?
Matt: Eighteen
Coach Eric Taylor: She's eighteen
Matt: Yes sir. I've, I've got a job up in Chicago, at a uh, well I've already got me two promotions...
Coach Taylor: The answer to your question is no. The answer to your question is gonna be no today, it's gonna be no tomorrow, and it'll probably be no until the sun burns out. Is that clear?
Matt: The thing is sir, we don't actually need your permission.
Coach Taylor: You damn well do need my permission!
Matt: We actually don't...I already asked her She already said yes, so you know this is really just a courtesy...
Coach Taylor: Let me do you the courtesy of telling you that my daughter's answer to you is "no."
If some 19 year old kid not only asked me for permission to marry my eighteen year old daughter, but had the gall to tell me "this is really just a courtesy, we really don't need your permission"I wouldn't have been able to show the restraint that Coach Taylor did. I love Coach Taylor's response. I just really wish he'd stuck to his convictions.
Matta Saracen: I 'd like your permission to marry your daughter, sir.
Coach Eric Taylor: (laughs) You what? Say that again?
Matt: I would like to marry Julie. I love her completely and I'm gonna take care of her for the rest of her life so I'd just really like, I'd like your blessing to ask her, to marry me sir
Coach Eric Taylor: Matt, how old are you?
Matt: Nineteen
Coach Taylor: You're only nineteen years old.
Matt: Yes sir.
Coach Eric Taylor: Matt, how old is my daughter?
Matt: Eighteen
Coach Eric Taylor: She's eighteen
Matt: Yes sir. I've, I've got a job up in Chicago, at a uh, well I've already got me two promotions...
Coach Taylor: The answer to your question is no. The answer to your question is gonna be no today, it's gonna be no tomorrow, and it'll probably be no until the sun burns out. Is that clear?
Matt: The thing is sir, we don't actually need your permission.
Coach Taylor: You damn well do need my permission!
Matt: We actually don't...I already asked her She already said yes, so you know this is really just a courtesy...
Coach Taylor: Let me do you the courtesy of telling you that my daughter's answer to you is "no."
If some 19 year old kid not only asked me for permission to marry my eighteen year old daughter, but had the gall to tell me "this is really just a courtesy, we really don't need your permission"I wouldn't have been able to show the restraint that Coach Taylor did. I love Coach Taylor's response. I just really wish he'd stuck to his convictions.
James from London
International Treasure
Interesting article/interview about The Sopranos in yesterday's Guardian.
If The Sopranos was groundbreaking at its debut two decades ago, it now occupies an even rarer category: a show that has become more admired and beloved with time. The Guardian has named The Sopranos the best TV show of the century so far, and its influence continues to be felt across viewing platforms that didn’t exist at the time of its conception. The prestige TV series, which unspools like a Russian novel but engages like a telenovela, set the tone for the boom in high-quality binge-programming – funny, smart, acutely well-observed and immensely addictive – that has reinvented the form.
***
Chase conceived of The Sopranos after decades of writing for network shows such as The Rockford Files and Northern Exposure. He was entirely unsurprised when Fox turned down the idea. “They don’t trust their audience at all,” he says. The Sopranos was too indeterminate; not a straightforward mob drama but not a mob comedy, either, although it is funny. In terms of character development, it’s too slow for network tastes. And then there was Tony himself. “I think they were afraid of it. Because how could you like this guy?”
The Sopranos ended up at HBO. Surprisingly, Chase thinks it would have a tough time being commissioned today, in spite of the fact that, after six seasons and 86 episodes, it is credited with changing audience tastes. “In this landscape? Sure,” he says. “Tony Soprano is too fat. He’s too crude. Who cares about New Jersey? I’ve seen these guys before.” There is a long pause. “It’s not dystopian enough. Everything seems to be dystopian now, and this isn’t.”
***
It was Gandolfini’s charm, says Chase, that accounted for so much of the show’s popularity, particularly the tricky act of getting audiences to sympathise with a killer. “I could tell you a million reasons, but one of them, I’m pretty sure, is that Jim Gandolfini was a magnet. He was impeccable. His eyes are sad. They’re alive. His problems are our problems.”
***
The one thing Chase has no anxiety about is The Sopranos’ endlessly deliberated ending. It ended the show with a precise degree of ambiguity that honoured the subtleties of the preceding six series, although its lack of resolution left some viewers complaining that they wanted closure. “I would say that there’s more symmetry than meets the eye,” he says. But the whole point of the ending was to avoid wrapping it up too neatly.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/david-chase-the-sopranos-best-tv-21st-century
If The Sopranos was groundbreaking at its debut two decades ago, it now occupies an even rarer category: a show that has become more admired and beloved with time. The Guardian has named The Sopranos the best TV show of the century so far, and its influence continues to be felt across viewing platforms that didn’t exist at the time of its conception. The prestige TV series, which unspools like a Russian novel but engages like a telenovela, set the tone for the boom in high-quality binge-programming – funny, smart, acutely well-observed and immensely addictive – that has reinvented the form.
***
Chase conceived of The Sopranos after decades of writing for network shows such as The Rockford Files and Northern Exposure. He was entirely unsurprised when Fox turned down the idea. “They don’t trust their audience at all,” he says. The Sopranos was too indeterminate; not a straightforward mob drama but not a mob comedy, either, although it is funny. In terms of character development, it’s too slow for network tastes. And then there was Tony himself. “I think they were afraid of it. Because how could you like this guy?”
The Sopranos ended up at HBO. Surprisingly, Chase thinks it would have a tough time being commissioned today, in spite of the fact that, after six seasons and 86 episodes, it is credited with changing audience tastes. “In this landscape? Sure,” he says. “Tony Soprano is too fat. He’s too crude. Who cares about New Jersey? I’ve seen these guys before.” There is a long pause. “It’s not dystopian enough. Everything seems to be dystopian now, and this isn’t.”
***
It was Gandolfini’s charm, says Chase, that accounted for so much of the show’s popularity, particularly the tricky act of getting audiences to sympathise with a killer. “I could tell you a million reasons, but one of them, I’m pretty sure, is that Jim Gandolfini was a magnet. He was impeccable. His eyes are sad. They’re alive. His problems are our problems.”
***
The one thing Chase has no anxiety about is The Sopranos’ endlessly deliberated ending. It ended the show with a precise degree of ambiguity that honoured the subtleties of the preceding six series, although its lack of resolution left some viewers complaining that they wanted closure. “I would say that there’s more symmetry than meets the eye,” he says. But the whole point of the ending was to avoid wrapping it up too neatly.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/david-chase-the-sopranos-best-tv-21st-century
Last edited:
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
Public taste is like a pendulum moving from one extreme to the other. It's feast or famine. Eventually overexposure of one extreme leads to burnout and adoption of the opposite extreme. The next trend will likely be one where all the shows are utopian.
Lastkidpicked
Telly Talk Dream Maker
Good point, and we can see this pendulum swing during the Dallas run.
We forget now, but the original miniseries was decidedly darker. It has a Shakespearean tragedy to it. The original Jock was hinted to have built his empire by bankrupting his competition through dirty deeds.
J.R. was a ruthless businessman by necessity. He had to live up to Jock's expectations (and never quite could). You actually felt sorry for J.R. in the early episodes, "Well, Daddy. I just thought one time you would have been proud of me."
Then, as our national mood lifted from the morass of the 70's, the tone of the show lifted as well.
J.R. became the villain that we often rooted for. Or at least tuned in to watch.
Ray became a Ewing, and a millionaire. Donna bought an oil field and named it Krebbs One. Bobby showed he could run Ewing Oil. There was even humorous patter between sworn enemies:
Cliff: Well, J.R. I've got great news for you.
J.R.: Oh, you've been diagnosed with a fatal disease?
HA! That magnificent bastard.
And there were storylines that were a little outlandish. And we had fun with them. And we all spent one memorable summer wondering, "Who shot J.R.?"
It was fun, and light hearted. The series mirrored that time in world events.
Then, as the end of the series approached, things moved darker once more, reflecting the dimming view toward large companies. The Exxon Valdez was traveling in the most pristine, deep blue water you can imagine inside of Prince William Sound. The oil tanker struck a reef spilling ten million gallons of oil. (37,000 metric tonnes for our European members here). People who fished all their lives, who never dealt with Exxon, had their livelihoods ruined.
Big corporations were expanding, and putting mom and pop shops out of business. Executives were laying off workers at the same time they were handing each other huge bonuses.
We stopped rooting for the magnificent bastards who walked all over people.
And the end of the series reflected this. The Shakespearean tragedy came full circle, with J.R. ending the series all alone, with a bottle of bourbon in one hand and a gun in the other.
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
Nice post Lastkid!
We all on some level realize how art imitates life, but you really did a great job of describing just how much art was imitating life, regarding Dallas.
It was a nice bit of synchronicity that the end of Dallas came in 1991 - the year that the Soviet Union collapsed. The Cold War and along with it, the threat of nuclear armageddon, ended without a single without a single bomb needing to be dropped. We didn't need to use force. Instead, in true Dallas fashion, we used money. The Soviets went bankrupt trying to keep up with us in the arms race, which was made possible by us having the superior economic system - capitalism.
Jimmy Todd
Telly Talk Mega Star
It's fascinating how @Lastkidpicked and @Kenny Coyote drew parallels between the tone of "Dallas" and what was happening in America at the time. Very clever observations!
I read an article by Stephen King on his opinion on why certain things in popular culture catch the public's interest. According to him, evil or scary children, especially girls(The Exorcist, Carrie, The Omen, etc) were popular in the U.S. during the late 60's and the 70's because they reflected an unconcious fear or unease with the youth and feminist movements. In Germany, he believed zombie movies were more popular at the same time because they reflected a subconscious fear of being haunted by the past.
The accuracy of Mr. King's theory is, of course, open to debate. However, the subject of art reflecting life, life reflecting art, or various degrees of both, is intriguing.
I read an article by Stephen King on his opinion on why certain things in popular culture catch the public's interest. According to him, evil or scary children, especially girls(The Exorcist, Carrie, The Omen, etc) were popular in the U.S. during the late 60's and the 70's because they reflected an unconcious fear or unease with the youth and feminist movements. In Germany, he believed zombie movies were more popular at the same time because they reflected a subconscious fear of being haunted by the past.
The accuracy of Mr. King's theory is, of course, open to debate. However, the subject of art reflecting life, life reflecting art, or various degrees of both, is intriguing.
Last edited:
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
I don't know about the accuracy of it, but it is intriguing.
I've read a lot of his books. I think The Stand was his best novel. It was amazing. What an intriguing scenario! To have to basically rebuild society. I think it would make for a great TV series. Not necessarily directly based on the novel like the TV mini-series was, but a series that would depict people in that situation of having to completely start over in rebuilding society and what choices would they make.
Jimmy Todd
Telly Talk Mega Star
Makes one wonder how many of us could do it, just as the battle for Ewing Oil makes one wonder if we ourselves would
have behaved differently from Bobby. I believe you brought up that very interesting point.
Last edited:
J. R.'s Piece
Telly Talk Star
I like seeing thugs/villains as the actual protagonists because you can have them behave more unpredictably. They can do the dark villainy stuff but you can drop them into the really heavy emotional drama and see how they react. Which is often in more complex ways. A character may have a seemingly good relationship with them but they might flip, beat them up or lock them up for a while. Emmett J. Scanlan described his multi-award-winning manipulative soap character, Brendan Brady, as, “I don't think he is either good or bad. Brendan's a man who defines his own moral code and principles, and lives with the consequences. He's the type of dude that will hit you as quick as look at you, but never touch a girl. His principles may be different to yours or mine but he's not good or bad, he's just... Brendan." And “I have never had the opportunity to play somebody as complex and as damaged as Brendan. He is without doubt a sociopathic, self-loathing, homophobic gay man and that in itself is a fascinating attraction for any actor to play. I think any actor would love a challenge, when you're doing a role if it pushes your boundaries and takes you out of yourself and allows you to experience different things. I think that's great. So coming up to do the part was exciting for me."
And multiple murderer Warren Fox on Hollyoaks is capable of pure heartbreaking honesty, which he sometimes delivers when lying his face off in the midst of his latest manipulation. He recently asked his ex, Sienna Blake, (a devious psychopath herself who had a serial-killing daughter by her own twin brother, who she later kept locked up and tried to be his girlfriend. The Coronation Street producer recently named her as one of three characters from other soaps he would like to have causing trouble on Coronation Street along with Cain Dingle and Phil Mitchell) to help save their son’s life, not telling her that their son, who he grabbed from her 20 months ago and she hasn’t seen since, was actually in the same hospital.
Yet essentially, he is a creature driven by his heart, most recently taking risks to save his two year old son (at the centre of the stolen babies storyline that has been running ever since 2017) with a bone marrow transplant. But also he is a scheming, former drug-dealing villainous bad boy and murdering thug, who puts his own needs above everyone else’s. And he can give great comedic moments, like laughing in a balaclava in the mirror at the thought of kidnapping and beating up Duncan James from Blue and at the other end of the scale being visibly sulky at not being able to beat up Duncan James from Blue. But he really wants to finds love, a good woman, to settle down and be a good dad. And sometimes he is really very caring, protective and a solid support for those closest to him. For a while. Although his relationships turn toxic because he is bad and causes chaos wherever he goes. Like the time he suffocated his pregnant fiancée on their wedding day and pretended that she jilted him. Which was after she found out that he murdered her husband and had an affair with their wedding planner and so she tried to murder him but underestimated his devious nature. He is a father of three. One is a priest, who is becoming a vicar, who gave his own aunt the drugs overdose that killed her, slept with his father’s psycho ex (mother of his half-siblings) and is currently engaged to the cousin of his father’s most recent murder victim. And he wants his dad to turn his back on the criminal stuff. Which they both want but is unlikely to happen.
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
Nice post! I appreciate the effort you put into it. I also find those types of characters interesting, sometimes even as the protagonist.
A distinction needs to be made though, between a character being entertaining and a character actually being likable. They aren't always the same thing. I've seen people say they liked Katherine when what I think they really meant they found her entertaining or interesting. I doubt they were really pulling for Katherine when she tried to murder Bobby. I doubt they were thinking: "Oh, what a great thing she's doing! I hope she succeeds in killing Bobby and gets away with it!"! Now here on Soapchat, will there be a few people who will say that's how they felt about Katherine? Nothing would surprise me at this point. People who would actually like Katherine would be an exception to the rule - they wouldn't be representative of the majority of the audience.
A likable character is someone the audience pulls for, who the audience wants to see succeed because they believe in what that character is doing. The audience finds the actions of that character admirable. Add to that character an engaging, interesting personality with a lot of charisma, and you have the potential for an incredibly well liked character. That character is a person who if the person existed in real life, the audience would want to be friends with that person because of all the wonderful qualities the character has.
Last edited:
James from London
International Treasure
It's not that she was a particular favourite of mine, but I remember genuinely rooting for Katherine, not when she was trying to kill Bobby, but when she was trying to win him for herself. I just really wanted to see what would happen if they got married and she moved onto Southfork.
I liked pretty much all the main characters on Dallas. The idea of admiring them has never really occurred to me. Whom I rooted for to succeed constantly fluctuated, sometimes from moment to moment, depending on what was happening. I didn't particularly want any of them to be happy, at least not in the long term. I really wanted Sue Ellen to find JR and Holly in bed --- I remember gnawing on the arm of the sofa with excitement when she climbed those stairs - not because I hated her and wanted her to be unhappy, and not because I loved her and wanted her to be free of JR, but because I knew all hell would break loose if she did.
I absolutely love watching the Ewings, but I can't imagine being friends with any of them. I've got nothing in common with them. Jock was a brilliant character, but I'm pretty sure I'd be beneath his contempt. Which is fine by me, really. I kind of wouldn't want it any other way. I really liked Donna's no-nonsense attitude and the way she stuck to her guns, but I've always had the feeling she would absolutely loathe me (a bit like she did Mickey when she first met him).
A slight deviation, but the same principle: Doctor Who's great, the character of the Doctor is great - heroic, eccentric, funny, etc. I've always loved him/her, except when he was played by a couple of terrible actors in the '80s who just make me swear at the TV, "Stop being so ****ing crap!" The other week, there was a minor hoo-ha on Twitter because the Doctor did something that could be interpreted as racist. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I don't mind either way. It makes the character more ambivalent, more complicated, more flawed, more interesting. I don't like the Doctor or the show any less as a result. It's fiction.
Last edited:
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
That's a valid viewpoint. I enjoy hearing about the ways different people see things. I'm glad we've got a variety of people with different views here. It's so much more interesting that way than if we all saw things the same way. We wouldn't have these interesting exchanges of ideas because there wouldn't be anything to exchange except: Right, yes, of course, I know that, etc.
If I understood you correctly, you don't particularly care about what happens to whom in Dallas as long as it makes a fascinating story. That's probably simplifying it, but is that more or less it, in a nutshell?
Regarding this: "The idea of admiring them has never really occurred to me", I have to wonder if you don't admire any of them, do you ever admire them at certain times, for particular things they did? Do you ever see a Dallas character do something and think: "I'd hope I'd have the guts to do that if I were in that situation" or "Wow, what a great work ethic; he's so committed to accomplishing his goals and isn't afraid to put int the hard work" or anything along those lines?
Mel O'Drama
Admin
I've thought about this from time to time (about characters from a number of shows) and reached the same conclusion. There aren't that many I could imagine clicking with in any significant way. Which is perhaps part of the reason they're so fascinating to watch.
By any chance, did you make a phone call to Five Star around that time?