New posts

The forum is about to undergo some crucial server updates

There may be a little downtime, but we'll be back online as soon as possible.

Watch this thread for updates

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spooky Owl!" data-source="post: 330415" data-attributes="member: 57984">Isn't it odd? --- and I think this speaks to DYNASTY's superior potential given inferior handling.DALLAS' backstory was longer ago, with the rivalry in the 1930s the gist of what we heard about it. In contrast, DYNASTY's backstory was mostly focused on the '50s and '60s, a more recent era of fascination to the baby boomers of '80s culture when the show was produced.DALLAS gave us precious little information about what the Ewings were doing in the '50s and '60s, other than letting us know that JR didn't kill anybody ("even during the war," presumably Viet Nam), that underaged Val and Gary had a baby circa 1961 named "Lucy," and, according to the EARLY YEARS prequel, toddlers Bobby and Pam first met at a Ewing barbeque (in 1951, before either were even born, depending on what contradictory time frame you prefer --- when that fateful barbecue should probably have been later in the '50s, perhaps some LBJ fundraiser Jock was hosting, when Digger tried to shoot his host).Of course, DYNASTY tossed out various facts from their more recent history, but nervously countered those details constantly  as well, And largely misses the boat on these pregnant historical references.DALLAS should have gotten dustier and darker in its closing years (instead of doing exactly the opposite) and emphasized the grimier, uglier elements of Texas mythology which the series barely ever touched on during its run. And DYNASTY -- despite its gauche wardrobe and catfights and barbs, oh my! -- should have done a much better job of dishing high society gossip and alluding to international scandal we'd all heard of (which sometimes Season 2 would do, with the fresh arrival of Alexis) in the way the show had once seemed to promise yet lost so quickly on the altar of dumbishly-contrived romances, and circular dialogue which pushed the ostensible narrative nowhere (at least until Paulsen came in for Season 9 when it was too late).Why did these shows lose their identities mid-way through their runs, so that they just seemed to be attempting to wing it -- or ewing it --- while they sputtered to their finish lines...?    But I wanted to see more backroads dirtiness and an inwardly-looking local flavor as  DALLAS wrapped up (something actually almost captured in TNT's nuDALLAS revival in 2012-2014, with its autumnal-wintry tone and renewed creepiness of JR, two of the things the reboot managed to get right) and I wanted more outward-looking power references on DYNASTY which made the viewer feel like the Carringtons had always lived at a level -- geographically, financially, culturally and politically --far above the rest of us.Each show in its own right offered a different blend of both old rich and nouveau riche, I guess. But it didn't quite happen that way, despite the unique and visible promise of either series.But then, diminishing returns seems to be the hallmark of series television, and few long-running programs escape that deterioration.<img src="https://www.80sgeek.be/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Dallas-versus-Dynasty.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></blockquote>

Verification: 6 + 4 =