- Awards
- 1
Warning: Spoilers about Season 2 episode 1 included
As a fan of the authentic DYNASTY, I have been on a roller-coaster of reactions regarding the peach reboot. In more than the first half of season one, I hated it, and in fact after the first 4-5 episodes I gave up on it. Then with the hoopla around Alexis showing up I went back to sample it, and I found it improved over the gigantic mess of season 1A. There were some more genuine character interactions, and some nice twists, including the Liam and Adam ones. But with the opening of season 2, all of the show's problems and small saving graces are again leaving me unable to decide if it deserves a place on my DVR schedule.
On the one hand, yes that is not Cidre's TNT Dallas who had an obvious s@@ew you attitude toward the old show, its fans, and the genre in general. This team has pored over the original and they throw little crumbs every now and then (the new Cristal being the latest one) to show that they want to stay in that tradition. But at the same time, I feel like their nods are almost the equivalent of someone ordering a huge burger with bacon and cheese and a gigantic order of fries and then asking for a light soda to balance the calories: in other words, it feels perfunctory.
Take, for instance, Alexis. I did not expect anything like Joan Collins, although there have been other characters who have played bitches to a grand degree of satisfaction (from Beecham as Sable to Madeleine Stowe on Revenge). But Sheridan's version, whether that be the writers or her or a combination, is a laughable cartoon and hardly a force to be reckoned with. If the show wanted comedic relief, there were so many other characters to do that with--if of course they decided to do it well. Whether intentional or not with her trailer park life, she has become the poor man's Alexis.
Then, we have Blake. Was the Blake of that episode a patriarch? He was a petulant teenager, and that moniker can be applied to so many of the show's characters which brings me to a deeper problem: we don't have a sense of what these characters can and can't do because anything goes and anyone can do anything. Good drama ensues when an established character is forced to go against their conscience, for instance. But Steven has lied so many times before (Ted Dinard, his drug addiction, etc.) that his latest lie is as noticeable as a cold.
The only one that seems to be developing a little is Fallon, who appears really committed to Culhane and knows herself enough to want to avoid temptations in her way. How long that will last, is anyone's guess.
As for the Colbys and Kirby, I hope they find some story for them more than the two of them hooking up and Anders turning red. The Colbys have already been neutered to an alarming degree with the latest parentage twists, and unless their mother is brought in soon they will stay as irrelevant as they were for most of season 1B.
So which DYNASTY is the show paying homage to? If it's not classic DYNASTY of seasons 1,2,3 and 9 because its characters are tragically inconsistent and ill-defined, is it DYNASTY of seasons 4,5,6? If that is the case, for all its storytelling problems in these seasons, the show back then was both reflecting an era and shaping it in many superficial areas like fashion. But I am not seeing the CW version doing that.
So I guess I will wait to see if things go north or south in the next few episodes. I hope the show's filming location is not an omen.
As a fan of the authentic DYNASTY, I have been on a roller-coaster of reactions regarding the peach reboot. In more than the first half of season one, I hated it, and in fact after the first 4-5 episodes I gave up on it. Then with the hoopla around Alexis showing up I went back to sample it, and I found it improved over the gigantic mess of season 1A. There were some more genuine character interactions, and some nice twists, including the Liam and Adam ones. But with the opening of season 2, all of the show's problems and small saving graces are again leaving me unable to decide if it deserves a place on my DVR schedule.
On the one hand, yes that is not Cidre's TNT Dallas who had an obvious s@@ew you attitude toward the old show, its fans, and the genre in general. This team has pored over the original and they throw little crumbs every now and then (the new Cristal being the latest one) to show that they want to stay in that tradition. But at the same time, I feel like their nods are almost the equivalent of someone ordering a huge burger with bacon and cheese and a gigantic order of fries and then asking for a light soda to balance the calories: in other words, it feels perfunctory.
Take, for instance, Alexis. I did not expect anything like Joan Collins, although there have been other characters who have played bitches to a grand degree of satisfaction (from Beecham as Sable to Madeleine Stowe on Revenge). But Sheridan's version, whether that be the writers or her or a combination, is a laughable cartoon and hardly a force to be reckoned with. If the show wanted comedic relief, there were so many other characters to do that with--if of course they decided to do it well. Whether intentional or not with her trailer park life, she has become the poor man's Alexis.
Then, we have Blake. Was the Blake of that episode a patriarch? He was a petulant teenager, and that moniker can be applied to so many of the show's characters which brings me to a deeper problem: we don't have a sense of what these characters can and can't do because anything goes and anyone can do anything. Good drama ensues when an established character is forced to go against their conscience, for instance. But Steven has lied so many times before (Ted Dinard, his drug addiction, etc.) that his latest lie is as noticeable as a cold.
The only one that seems to be developing a little is Fallon, who appears really committed to Culhane and knows herself enough to want to avoid temptations in her way. How long that will last, is anyone's guess.
As for the Colbys and Kirby, I hope they find some story for them more than the two of them hooking up and Anders turning red. The Colbys have already been neutered to an alarming degree with the latest parentage twists, and unless their mother is brought in soon they will stay as irrelevant as they were for most of season 1B.
So which DYNASTY is the show paying homage to? If it's not classic DYNASTY of seasons 1,2,3 and 9 because its characters are tragically inconsistent and ill-defined, is it DYNASTY of seasons 4,5,6? If that is the case, for all its storytelling problems in these seasons, the show back then was both reflecting an era and shaping it in many superficial areas like fashion. But I am not seeing the CW version doing that.
So I guess I will wait to see if things go north or south in the next few episodes. I hope the show's filming location is not an omen.
Last edited:
