Was Falcon Crest better written than Dynasty?

[Gioberti84]

Sorry I tried to edit my earlier post but most of the text disappeared so I've reposted the thread. Admin please delete the duplicate earlier post. Thank you!

I think it was @Spooky Owl who commented some time ago about the parallels between
Falcon Crest and Dynasty. My question though is which one was better written, across nine seasons?

Falcon Crest was gothic and atmospheric in the highest rated seasons, up to the spring of 1985. Dynasty was at the risk of cancellation until Aaron Spelling played an ace card, when Joan Collins was hired. I enjoyed Dynasty but the story telling did not get me hooked, as much as Falcon Crest.

Those Dynasty folks were more like in a fairytale land, compared to the wine making gang. The lack of location shooting and flipping between overacting and flat acting didn't help Dynasty either. Falcon Crest had diabolical moments too but at least it was more rooted in business. The high level of campness and portrayal of fashion/glamour, the never ending war between Alexis and Krystle with Blake so posessive of his Dynasty were the show's main selling points.

So which show do you think was better written?

 

[Monzo]

All things considered, I find Dynasty to be better written than Falcon Crest. Looking at the entire run Falcon Crest lost its momentum quite quickly, whereas some storylines from seasons 5 and 6 of Dynasty remained memorable even to those who aren't die-hard soap fans.

One thing that bothered me about the writing in Falcon Crest was that death was consistently used as an easy way out of a plotline. Even though Dallas and Knots Landing both ran for over a hundred episodes more than Falcon Crest, far fewer characters died in those shows. Dynasty may have killed off too few characters, see the Moldavian massacre, but at least it made an effort to keep characters in the show rather than simply killing them off.

What speaks in favor of Dynasty is that the show became successful on its own, without needing a lead-in—unlike Falcon Crest. I’ve always wondered how Falcon Crest might have fared if it had aired on NBC (instead of Flamingo Road) or on ABC (instead of Paper Dolls). Would it still have reached nine seasons, or would it have turned out to be a short-lived soap instead?

 

[Gioberti84]

That was the one disadvantage of the storytelling in Falcon Crest, all those deaths (just over 100). I suppose the killing was somehow a distinguishable factor of the show, compared to the others. Of course it had a obvious disadvantage in that whatever future plots or storylines where a character who was dead could've contributed so much to that particular time.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

You're both right.

All four of the '80s nighttime soaps were better than each other depending on the season and who was writing/producing them at any given period.

DYNASTY was well-written during Seasons 1, 2 and 9. But in between, the dialogue became more florid and "soapy," far too many scenes wound up veering off into dialogue lazily reaffirming the characters' relationships ("You're my father/mother/sister/brother/lover and I love/hate you!") when the writers were too bored with their own plotlines to have those characters converse naturally or logically. (Made more obvious by the introduction of the static acting directive beginning with Season 3, which caused decently-written scenes to feel unnecessarily stupid). Most years, the DYNASTY writers didn't know what story they wanted to tell, how to tell it, or how to effectively wrap up cliffhangers, large or small (the Moldavia Massacre's pathetic aftermath a metaphor for the series' problems as a whole). So DYNASTY just became about "events" -- parties, catfights, time-killing bedroom scenes -- and as any competent television writer will tell you: events are not story; events are only an enhancement to the story.

FALCON CREST was often more frenetic yet more competent in its storytelling. Especially during its first three seasons when Robert McCullough ran the narrative -- he knew what he was doing. And even when there were holes in the writing, sheer chutzpah pulled it off. Season 4 was acceptable until CBS demanded the nazi treasure storyline, the year's main plotline, be dropped 10 episodes before the end of that season... For me, FC just never recovered... Season 5 was drab and cluttered. Seasons 6, under Jeff Freilich, reenergized the series yet offered up too much silliness. Season 7 was too frenetic, while remaining too silly. Season 8 tried to go straight again but the show no longer knew how (bring back McCullough, not Stern & Black!). And Season 9 was a different show entirely, which may or may not have appealed to the viewer -- depending on that viewer.

At the end of the day, I'd have to say FALCON CREST was the better-written -- even though both shows had tons of crap mixed in. The difference being that, good or bad -- successful or unsuccessful, FC was actually trying to tell a story. Mostly, DYNASTY was not, and seemed to have little genuine interest in their characters (S.A.D. just making that harder to obscure, rendering the characters somehow lobotomized and more artificial than all the sequins).

DYNASTY may have had the most potential of any of the four '80s primetime serials, but did the least with whatever it had, the show constantly suppressed and suffocated by "not really proper writers" (as the Pollocks were described). But FALCON CREST at least tried -- sometimes even trying perhaps a little too hard.

Otherwise, the parallels between the two shows, as we've discussed in another thread, are uncanny.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Dynasty was at the risk of cancellation until Aaron Spelling played an ace card, when Joan Collins was hired

Whatever the reason for the almost-cancellation was, it certainly wasn't bad writing.

The high level of campness and portrayal of fashion/glamour, the never ending war between Alexis and Krystle with Blake so posessive of his Dynasty were the show's main selling points.

There was camp in Dynasty but unlike Falcon Crest it was never written as comedy.

Dynasty was the soap for me that remained must-watch TV while the second half of Falcon Crest could be a bit trying sometimes (not that I ever considered stop watching).

 

[Daniel Avery]

Falcon Crest certainly was the funnier of the two---that is, intentionally funny. I was always anticipating Angela's dry, witty responses to the goings-on around her. She would have found Blake and Krystle to be dull company....until she got Chao-Li to over-serve them from the private cellar.

FC was arguably the funniest of the four, though.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Falcon Crest certainly was the funnier of the two---that is, intentionally funny. I was always anticipating Angela's dry, witty responses to the goings-on around her. She would have found Blake and Krystle to be dull company....until she got Chao-Li to over-serve them from the private cellar.

FC was arguably the funniest of the four, though.

Well, FC engaged in two different kinds of funny: the genuine drollness of the early years versus the shlocky, wink-at-the-camera stuff from later on -- the problem complicated by the fact that the later writers thought it was the same thing.

In contrast, DYNASTY took itself very seriously -- as such a show should. But most of it was such a stifled, creative mess, it didn't really matter. (Once again, Seasons 1, 2 and 9 were well-written).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

There was camp in Dynasty but unlike Falcon Crest it was never written as comedy.

Dynasty was the soap for me that remained must-watch TV while the second half of Falcon Crest could be a bit trying sometimes (not that I ever considered stop watching).

DYNASTY remained must-watch TV for me, too, but only masochistically (to see how bad it would continue getting). Thank goodness I stuck with it until the dramatic riches of Season 9, when Paulsen took over.

It's been said before that despite the shlock, FC still had compelling characters during its later years (e.g., Richard and Maggie) while DYNASTY was too paralyzed (except for Season 9) and lobotomistic.

All those things are true.

 

[Willie Oleson]

FC was arguably the funniest of the four, though.

Call me controversial but I think DALLAS and THE COLBYS are the funniest soaps. I don't mean jokey stuff, it's more about how the stories plot against the characters.
Every time they think they've figured out how their lives should be, something else happens!

 

[Jock Og]

Imho the Tuscany Valley wine saga had the writing edge, over the Colorado set show. That's not being biased because I'm an age old follower its just FALCON CREST made better use of the ingredients available and told the story in a wholesome way. From start to finish Angela was about her family's land/wine legacy and at no time of her own choice would she have been absent from there, for a prolonged period of time.

Of course FC had low points (what show doesn't). DYNASTY was entertaining and kept DALLAS on it's toes but the lack of location shooting and the S.A.D. was a noose compared to when it wasn't there, in season 1, 2 and 9. I'd say season 9 from a story perspective was A* compared to a very lacklustre FC season 9.

Jane Wyman once said "you can tell anybody anything you like, if you say it with humour." John Forsythe had said the showrunners of DYNASTY had not a tight hold on the story, in the mid eighties and prior to the excellent final season.

FC season 3 was a fine vintage.

Will Alexis get what she wants, in DYNASTY season 5.


Angela and Maggie are in the Falcon Crest living room. Maggie is interviewing Angela. Chase's wife is doing a story about her deceased mother in law dearest Jacqueline; (a scene from season 3, 1983 - '84):

Angela: "Jacqueline is a person I don't care to discuss!"

Maggie: "Angela, you must have so many valuable memories of her? Now, according to my research she came here in the year of the great drought."

Angela: "Yes she did. Disasters seem to come in pairs."

Some time later......

Angela: "She is an opportunist! She only cares for money and power."

Maggie: "You know she might have said the same thing about you!"

 

[Willie Oleson]

FC still had compelling characters during its later years (e.g., Richard and Maggie)

I agree that it helped to make those stories more lively, sometimes with unexpected character decisions and reactions that Dynasty no longer did. Perhaps you could say that Dynasty "died" when Blake's redemption was completed. A soap patriarch should never stop ruining lives.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Of course FC had low points (what show doesn't). DYNASTY was entertaining and kept DALLAS on it's toes but the lack of location shooting and the S.A.D. was a noose compared to when it wasn't there, in season 1, 2 and 9. I'd say season 9 from a story perspective was A* compared to a very lacklustre FC season 9.

Yes, DYNASTY was the only one of the four '80s shows that had no seasonal location shooting arc. There was no sense of Colorado or the mountains (although they did they best job of faking it during Season 1 & 2 before giving up completely after Ed Ledding was pushed out) and, as such, no feeling for "the land" that we got from FALCON CREST and DALLAS -- not that the hapless show runners of DYNASTY would have done much with it if they had spent a month in Denver every summer. (Aaron Spelling even sent LOVE BOAT on an actual cruise once a year, but DYNASTY only filmed once in Denver at the Carousel Ball which was a largely interior event).

A "sense of place" is so important to these shows. It offers a potential organicity that otherwise might not be there. With DALLAS, we knew Section 40 and even Two Stick Pastures were out there somewhere on Southfork. In contrast, Scorpio Peak was mentioned only once on DYNASTY, and Blake's mama's crater -- though a nice idea -- never really resonated because it received no backstory elaborations and the writing was so muddled overall. FC at least had the Napa vineyards (although turning the village into a bustling metropolis later hurt the rural ambiance that had once been so important).

KNOTS, obviously, had the beaches right there.

 

[Chloe-Fusco]

I think Falcon Crest was better. Dynasty became all about Alexis and not in a good way. I was a Blake and Krystyle fan. It got a bit annoying and even childish, all those catfights. Oh and all those recasts of the kids to consider

 

[ClassyCo]

DYNASTY was the first of the "Big Four" primetime soaps from the '80s that I watched, and for many years, I was one of its biggest defenders. The thing is, DYNASTY started off strong, even if Season 1 was a little slow for me. Season 2 is where everything to fell into place, and the show found the outrageous-reality balance that really worked. Joan Collins is great as a Alexis, even if I can admit she came to dominate the show a little too much as time lingered on. The middle years of the show (at a time when it was one of the hottest shows on TV, followed by a sensational decline) are where the major problems are. The clips you can find online are definitely misleading of a show that had serious issues with characterization and telling a cohesive story. Season 8 was a step back in the right direction -- for the most part, anyway -- and Season 9 ended up being perhaps the best season of the show overall. A life was brought back, and the show needed at least one more season to wrap everything up nicely.

FALCON CREST started self-contained -- as did DALLAS and KNOTS LANDING -- so those first ten episodes of Season 1 can be a bit of a chore to get through. Once the show became a full-fledged soap, however, I feel like it was a strong show with good, solid characters, conflicts, and resolutions. Seasons 2 and 3 are FALCON CREST at its peak, at a time when, for me at least, it rarely made a misstep. At the start of Season 4, you could tell there was something off, most likely off-camera, and Season 5 only added to that cluttered, overly-stuffed feeling. Season 6 was reenergized, and I liked it a lot, while Season 7 was too busy, too many comings and goings, and Season 8 got boring very fast.

To answer the question, though, I'd argue that FALCON CREST was better written than DYNASTY. While the latter is more iconic, the former was a better-written, better-executed show when it was in its prime. Of course, this conclusion is drawn from my admiration of Jane Wyman, David Selby, and Susan Sullivan, the location shooting in the Napa Valley, and the beauty of the homes (in the earlier seasons at least), but I think FALCON CREST, overall, is a better show. That's not to say that FALCON CREST didn't make some bad decisions and that the show isn't without its low points. I just think DYNASTY is more frustrating because the potential is there, but it's just squandered left and right.

But, as they say, that's just me.